Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-89412-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4871a305-5d45-47d2-85f2-d718c423db80@canonical.com>
References: <f184a2d6-7892-4e43-a0cd-cab638c3d5c2@amd.com> <096178c9-91de-4752-bdc4-6a31bcdcbaf8@amd.com>
 <4871a305-5d45-47d2-85f2-d718c423db80@canonical.com>
From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 11:23:04 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGudoHFkDmGuPQDLf6rfiJxUdqFxjeeM-_9rFCApSrBYzfyRmA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/9] Nginx refcount scalability issue with Apparmor enabled
 and potential solutions
To: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com>, paul@paul-moore.com, jmorris@namei.org, 
	serge@hallyn.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>, 
	"Shukla, Santosh" <Santosh.Shukla@amd.com>, "Narayan, Ananth" <Ananth.Narayan@amd.com>, 
	raghavendra.kodsarathimmappa@amd.com, koverstreet@google.com, 
	paulmck@kernel.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com, vinicius.gomes@intel.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On 2/9/24, John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com> wrote:
> On 2/6/24 20:40, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
>> Gentle ping.
>>
>> John,
>>
>> Could you please confirm that:
>>
>> a. The AppArmor refcount usage described in the RFC is correct?
>> b. Approach taken to fix the scalability issue is valid/correct?
>>
>
> Hi Neeraj,
>
> I know your patchset has been waiting on review for a long time.
> Unfortunately I have been very, very busy lately. I will try to
> get to it this weekend, but I can't promise that I will be able
> to get the review fully done.
>

Gentle prod.

Any chances of this getting reviewed in the foreseeable future? Would
be a real bummer if the patchset fell through the cracks.

-- 
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>