Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] kmod: help make deterministic

[Kees Cook]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 02:12:24PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> This v3 nukes the proc sysctl interface in favor for just letting userspace
>> just check kernel revision. Prior to whenever this is merged userspace should
>> try to avoid hammering more than 50 kmod threads as they can fail and it'd
>> get -ENOMEM.
>>
>> We do away with the old heuristics on assuming you could end up with
>> less than max_threads/2 < 50 threads as Dmitry notes this would mean having
>> a system with 16 MiB of RAM with modules enabled. It simplifies our patch
>> "kmod: reduce atomic operations on kmod_concurrent" considerbly.
>>
>> Since the sysctl interface is gone, this no longer depends on any
>> other patches, the series is independent. As usual the series is
>> available on my linux-next 20170526-kmod-only branch which is based
>> on next-20170526.
>>
>> [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux-next.git/log/?h=20170526-kmod-only
>>
>>   Luis
>>
>> Luis R. Rodriguez (4):
>>   module: use list_for_each_entry_rcu() on find_module_all()
>>   kmod: reduce atomic operations on kmod_concurrent and simplify
>>   kmod: add test driver to stress test the module loader
>>   kmod: throttle kmod thread limit
>
> About a month now with no further nitpicks. What tree should these changes
> go through if there are no issues? Andrew's, Jessica's ?

Seems like going through Jessica's would make the most sense?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security