From: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: sysctl: make drop_caches write-only
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 19:24:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191101192405.GA866154@chrisdown.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191101115950.bb88d49849bfecb1af0a88bf@linux-foundation.org>
Andrew Morton writes:
>> > The only scenario I can construct in my head is that someone has built
>> > something to watch drop_caches for modification, but we already have the
>> > kmsg output for that.
>
>The scenario is that something opens /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches for
>reading, gets unexpected EPERM and blows up?
Right, but...
>OK. What if we make reads always return "0"? That will fix the
>misleading output and is more backwards-compatible?
...I'm not convinced that if an application has no error boundary for that
EPERM that it can tolerate a change in behaviour, either. I mean, if it's
opening it at all, presumably it intends to do *something* based on the value
(regardless of import or lack thereof). It may do nothing, but it's not
possible to know whether that's better or worse than blowing up.
I have mixed feelings on this one. Pragmatically, as someone who programs in
userspace, I'd like failures based on changes in infrastructure to be loud, not
silent. If I'm doing something which doesn't work, I'd like to know about it.
Of course, one can make the argument that as a user of such an application,
sometimes you don't have that luxury.
Either change is an upgrade from the current situation, at least. I prefer
towards whatever makes the API the least confusing, which appears to be
Johannes' original change, but I'd support a patch which always set it to
0 instead if it was deemed safer.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-01 19:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-31 22:16 [PATCH] kernel: sysctl: make drop_caches write-only Johannes Weiner
2019-10-31 23:28 ` Andrew Morton
2019-11-01 11:09 ` Chris Down
2019-11-01 11:09 ` Chris Down
2019-11-01 14:45 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-11-01 18:59 ` Andrew Morton
2019-11-01 19:24 ` Chris Down [this message]
2019-11-01 19:29 ` Andrew Morton
2019-11-01 19:35 ` Andrew Morton
2019-11-02 15:55 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2019-11-03 19:00 ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-11-01 10:58 ` Chris Down
2019-11-04 10:37 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-11-04 13:25 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-11-05 6:20 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191101192405.GA866154@chrisdown.name \
--to=chris@chrisdown.name \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).