On Wed 20-09-23 12:46:23, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 9:55 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed 20-09-23 08:32:42, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > > Also I don't think reverting 58056f77502f would give any benefit. > > > > Not reverting 58056f77502f would re-introduce the regression in some > > non-patched versions of Docker runtimes which cannot handle ENOTSUPP. > > So I think we need to revert both or none of them. I would prefer the > > later (option 1) as the fix is trivial but I do understand headache > > of chasing all those outdated deployments or vendor code forks. > > I think that would be too much conservative an approach but I don't Well, TBH I do not really see any sifference between one set of broken userspace or the other. Both are making assumptions on our interfaces and they do not overlap unfortunately. > have a strong opinion against it. Also just to be clear we are not > talking about full revert of 58056f77502f but just the returning of > EOPNOTSUPP, right? If we allow the limit to be set without returning a failure then we still have options 2 and 3 on how to deal with that. One of them is to enforce the limit. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
