Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 09:29:04 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > Maybe splitting the patch into three: 1) remove all callers of kmemleak > API and 2) remove arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/ and 3) remove leftovers would > be slightly easier to review. Maybe 2 and 3 would have some dependencies >

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 09:29:04 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > Maybe splitting the patch into three: 1) remove all callers of kmemleak > API and 2) remove arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/ and 3) remove leftovers would > be slightly easier to review. Maybe 2 and 3 would have some dependencies > so they would have

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

On Sat 30-09-17 20:02:41, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 03:57:27PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote: > >On 30 September 2017 at 11:48, Steven Rostedt wrote: > >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:02:07 +0200 > >> Michal Hocko wrote: > >> > >>> > Now that 2

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

On Sat 30-09-17 20:02:41, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 03:57:27PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote: > >On 30 September 2017 at 11:48, Steven Rostedt wrote: > >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:02:07 +0200 > >> Michal Hocko wrote: > >> > >>> > Now that 2 years have passed, and all distros

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 03:57:27PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote: >On 30 September 2017 at 11:48, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:02:07 +0200 >> Michal Hocko wrote: >> >>> > Now that 2 years have passed, and all distros provide gcc that

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 03:57:27PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote: >On 30 September 2017 at 11:48, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:02:07 +0200 >> Michal Hocko wrote: >> >>> > Now that 2 years have passed, and all distros provide gcc that supports >>> > KASAN, kill kmemcheck again for

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

On 30 September 2017 at 11:48, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:02:07 +0200 > Michal Hocko wrote: > >> > Now that 2 years have passed, and all distros provide gcc that supports >> > KASAN, kill kmemcheck again for the very same reasons. >> >>

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

On 30 September 2017 at 11:48, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:02:07 +0200 > Michal Hocko wrote: > >> > Now that 2 years have passed, and all distros provide gcc that supports >> > KASAN, kill kmemcheck again for the very same reasons. >> >> This is just too large to review

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:02:07 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > > Now that 2 years have passed, and all distros provide gcc that supports > > KASAN, kill kmemcheck again for the very same reasons. > > This is just too large to review manually. How have you generated the > patch?

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:02:07 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > > Now that 2 years have passed, and all distros provide gcc that supports > > KASAN, kill kmemcheck again for the very same reasons. > > This is just too large to review manually. How have you generated the > patch? I agree. This needs

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:36:27PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >"Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" writes: > >> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 05:02:07PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >>>This is just too large to review manually. How have you generated the >>>patch? >> >>

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:36:27PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >"Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" writes: > >> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 05:02:07PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >>>This is just too large to review manually. How have you generated the >>>patch? >> >> Manualy. Note that most of it

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

"Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" writes: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 05:02:07PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >>This is just too large to review manually. How have you generated the >>patch? > > Manualy. Note that most of it (~95%) is the result of 'rm >

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

"Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" writes: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 05:02:07PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >>This is just too large to review manually. How have you generated the >>patch? > > Manualy. Note that most of it (~95%) is the result of 'rm > arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck'. > > Otherwise, I just

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 05:02:07PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >This is just too large to review manually. How have you generated the >patch? Manualy. Note that most of it (~95%) is the result of 'rm arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck'. Otherwise, I just removed all uses of __GFP_NOWARN/SLAB_NOWARN, and

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 05:02:07PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >This is just too large to review manually. How have you generated the >patch? Manualy. Note that most of it (~95%) is the result of 'rm arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck'. Otherwise, I just removed all uses of __GFP_NOWARN/SLAB_NOWARN, and

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

On Wed 27-09-17 11:27:40, Sasha Levin wrote: > 2 Years ago I proposed to kill kmemcheck: > > > As discussed on LSF/MM, kill kmemcheck. > > > > KASan is a replacement that is able to work without the limitation of > > kmemcheck (single CPU, slow). KASan is already upstream. > > > > We are also not

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

On Wed 27-09-17 11:27:40, Sasha Levin wrote: > 2 Years ago I proposed to kill kmemcheck: > > > As discussed on LSF/MM, kill kmemcheck. > > > > KASan is a replacement that is able to work without the limitation of > > kmemcheck (single CPU, slow). KASan is already upstream. > > > > We are also not

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

I stupidly forgot to Cc Pekka and Vegard, now Cc'ed. On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:27:40AM +, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote: >2 Years ago I proposed to kill kmemcheck: > >> As discussed on LSF/MM, kill kmemcheck. >> >> KASan is a replacement that is able to work without the limitation of

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

I stupidly forgot to Cc Pekka and Vegard, now Cc'ed. On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:27:40AM +, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote: >2 Years ago I proposed to kill kmemcheck: > >> As discussed on LSF/MM, kill kmemcheck. >> >> KASan is a replacement that is able to work without the limitation of

[PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

2 Years ago I proposed to kill kmemcheck: > As discussed on LSF/MM, kill kmemcheck. > > KASan is a replacement that is able to work without the limitation of > kmemcheck (single CPU, slow). KASan is already upstream. > > We are also not aware of any users of kmemcheck (or users who don't consider

[PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck again

2 Years ago I proposed to kill kmemcheck: > As discussed on LSF/MM, kill kmemcheck. > > KASan is a replacement that is able to work without the limitation of > kmemcheck (single CPU, slow). KASan is already upstream. > > We are also not aware of any users of kmemcheck (or users who don't consider

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:48:23 -0400 Sasha Levin wrote: > Steven, > > > Since the only objection raised was the too-newiness of GCC 4.9.2/5.0, what > would you consider a good time-line for removal? > > I haven't heard any "over my dead body" objections, so I guess that trying > to remove it

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On 03/11/2015 10:52 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> > Could you try KASan for your use case and see if it potentially uncovers >> > anything new? > The problem is, I don't have a setup to build with the latest compiler. > > I could build with my host compiler (that happens to be 4.9.2), but it >

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:48:23 -0400 Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote: Steven, Since the only objection raised was the too-newiness of GCC 4.9.2/5.0, what would you consider a good time-line for removal? I haven't heard any over my dead body objections, so I guess that trying to

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On 03/11/2015 10:52 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: Could you try KASan for your use case and see if it potentially uncovers anything new? The problem is, I don't have a setup to build with the latest compiler. I could build with my host compiler (that happens to be 4.9.2), but it would take a

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

None of these postings are making it to the mailing list because the CC: list is way too large. It is never appropriate to CC: so many people, just CC: the primary mailing list and maybe a handful of individual developers at most. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

None of these postings are making it to the mailing list because the CC: list is way too large. It is never appropriate to CC: so many people, just CC: the primary mailing list and maybe a handful of individual developers at most. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

From: Andrey Ryabinin Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 23:01:00 +0300 > 2015-03-11 21:44 GMT+03:00 David Miller : >> From: Sasha Levin >> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:25:47 -0400 >> >>> You're probably wondering why there are changes to SPARC in that patchset? >>> :) >> >> Libsanitizer doesn't even build

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

2015-03-11 21:44 GMT+03:00 David Miller : > From: Sasha Levin > Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:25:47 -0400 > >> You're probably wondering why there are changes to SPARC in that patchset? :) > > Libsanitizer doesn't even build have the time on sparc, the release > manager has to hand patch it into

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

From: Sasha Levin Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:25:47 -0400 > You're probably wondering why there are changes to SPARC in that patchset? :) Libsanitizer doesn't even build have the time on sparc, the release manager has to hand patch it into building again every major release because of the way

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On 03/11/2015 01:20 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Sasha Levin > Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:39:33 -0400 > >> > On 03/11/2015 08:40 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: >>> >> On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400 >>> >> Sasha Levin wrote: >>> >> > >>> > Fair enough. We knew there are existing kmemcheck

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

From: Sasha Levin Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:39:33 -0400 > On 03/11/2015 08:40 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400 >> Sasha Levin wrote: >> >>> > Fair enough. We knew there are existing kmemcheck users, but KASan should >>> > be >>> > superior both in performance

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:43:29 -0400 Sasha Levin wrote: > On 03/11/2015 10:26 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > >> There's no real hurry to kill kmemcheck right now, but we do want to stop > >> > supporting that in favour of KASan. > > Understood, but the kernel is suppose to support older compilers. >

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On 03/11/2015 10:26 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> There's no real hurry to kill kmemcheck right now, but we do want to stop >> > supporting that in favour of KASan. > Understood, but the kernel is suppose to support older compilers. > Perhaps we can keep kmemcheck for now and say it's obsoleted if

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On 03/11/2015 03:39 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 03/11/2015 08:40 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400 >> Sasha Levin wrote: >> Fair enough. We knew there are existing kmemcheck users, but KASan should be superior both in performance and the scope of bugs

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:39:33 -0400 Sasha Levin wrote: > On 03/11/2015 08:40 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400 > > Sasha Levin wrote: > > > >> > Fair enough. We knew there are existing kmemcheck users, but KASan > >> > should be > >> > superior both in

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 09:39:33AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 03/11/2015 08:40 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400 > > Sasha Levin wrote: > > > >> > Fair enough. We knew there are existing kmemcheck users, but KASan > >> > should be > >> > superior both

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On 03/11/2015 08:40 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400 > Sasha Levin wrote: > >> > Fair enough. We knew there are existing kmemcheck users, but KASan should >> > be >> > superior both in performance and the scope of bugs it finds. It also >> > shouldn't >> > impose

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400 Sasha Levin wrote: > Fair enough. We knew there are existing kmemcheck users, but KASan should be > superior both in performance and the scope of bugs it finds. It also shouldn't > impose new limitations beyond requiring gcc 4.9.2+. > Ouch! OK, then I can't

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On 03/11/2015 08:19 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > I removed the Cc list as it was so large, I'm sure that it exceeded the > LKML Cc size limit, and your email probably didn't make it to the list > (or any of them). Thanks. I'll resend in a bit if it doesn't show up on lkml.org. > On Wed, 11 Mar

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

I removed the Cc list as it was so large, I'm sure that it exceeded the LKML Cc size limit, and your email probably didn't make it to the list (or any of them). On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 07:43:59 -0400 Sasha Levin wrote: > As discussed on LSF/MM, kill kmemcheck. > > KASan is a replacement that is

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

From: Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:39:33 -0400 On 03/11/2015 08:40 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400 Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote: Fair enough. We knew there are existing kmemcheck users, but KASan should be

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

From: Andrey Ryabinin ryabinin@gmail.com Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 23:01:00 +0300 2015-03-11 21:44 GMT+03:00 David Miller da...@davemloft.net: From: Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:25:47 -0400 You're probably wondering why there are changes to SPARC in that

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On 03/11/2015 01:20 PM, David Miller wrote: From: Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:39:33 -0400 On 03/11/2015 08:40 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400 Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote: Fair enough. We knew there are

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

2015-03-11 21:44 GMT+03:00 David Miller da...@davemloft.net: From: Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:25:47 -0400 You're probably wondering why there are changes to SPARC in that patchset? :) Libsanitizer doesn't even build have the time on sparc, the release

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

From: Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:25:47 -0400 You're probably wondering why there are changes to SPARC in that patchset? :) Libsanitizer doesn't even build have the time on sparc, the release manager has to hand patch it into building again every major release

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On 03/11/2015 08:40 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400 Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote: Fair enough. We knew there are existing kmemcheck users, but KASan should be superior both in performance and the scope of bugs it finds. It also shouldn't

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400 Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote: Fair enough. We knew there are existing kmemcheck users, but KASan should be superior both in performance and the scope of bugs it finds. It also shouldn't impose new limitations beyond requiring gcc 4.9.2+. Ouch!

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

I removed the Cc list as it was so large, I'm sure that it exceeded the LKML Cc size limit, and your email probably didn't make it to the list (or any of them). On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 07:43:59 -0400 Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote: As discussed on LSF/MM, kill kmemcheck. KASan is a

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On 03/11/2015 08:19 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: I removed the Cc list as it was so large, I'm sure that it exceeded the LKML Cc size limit, and your email probably didn't make it to the list (or any of them). Thanks. I'll resend in a bit if it doesn't show up on lkml.org. On Wed, 11 Mar 2015

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On 03/11/2015 03:39 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: On 03/11/2015 08:40 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400 Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote: Fair enough. We knew there are existing kmemcheck users, but KASan should be superior both in performance and the scope of

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On 03/11/2015 10:26 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: There's no real hurry to kill kmemcheck right now, but we do want to stop supporting that in favour of KASan. Understood, but the kernel is suppose to support older compilers. Perhaps we can keep kmemcheck for now and say it's obsoleted if you

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:43:29 -0400 Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote: On 03/11/2015 10:26 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: There's no real hurry to kill kmemcheck right now, but we do want to stop supporting that in favour of KASan. Understood, but the kernel is suppose to support older

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 09:39:33AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: On 03/11/2015 08:40 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400 Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote: Fair enough. We knew there are existing kmemcheck users, but KASan should be superior

Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck

On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:39:33 -0400 Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote: On 03/11/2015 08:40 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400 Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote: Fair enough. We knew there are existing kmemcheck users, but KASan should be