Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-192414-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <f184a2d6-7892-4e43-a0cd-cab638c3d5c2@amd.com> <096178c9-91de-4752-bdc4-6a31bcdcbaf8@amd.com>
 <4871a305-5d45-47d2-85f2-d718c423db80@canonical.com> <CAGudoHFkDmGuPQDLf6rfiJxUdqFxjeeM-_9rFCApSrBYzfyRmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3b880c7c-0d19-4bb6-9f0f-fb69047f41cd@canonical.com> <CAGudoHEycK3iTO2Rrsqr56_Lm69rCzMRaYz11NLrOcn5gKB3RA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5c94947b-1f1f-44a7-8b9c-b701c78350b4@canonical.com>
In-Reply-To: <5c94947b-1f1f-44a7-8b9c-b701c78350b4@canonical.com>
From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 15:29:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGudoHFxma+H_iHPV8+gfEkHc0uwFD8=rJtFy7ZE3TH+7tGiwQ@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"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 11:52=E2=80=AFPM John Johansen
<john.johansen@canonical.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/24/24 14:10, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 9:09=E2=80=AFPM John Johansen
> > <john.johansen@canonical.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 3/2/24 02:23, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >> yes, sorry I have been unavailable for the last couple of weeks. I am
> >> now back, I have a rather large backlog to try catching up on but this
> >> is has an entry on the list.
> >>
> >
> > So where do we stand here?
> >
> sorry I am still trying to dig out of my backlog, I will look at this,
> this weekend.
>

How was the weekend? ;)

--=20
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>