lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 20 May 2020 20:09:06 +0100
From:   Chris Down <>
To:     Naresh Kamboju <>
Cc:     Yafang Shao <>,
        Michal Hocko <>,
        Anders Roxell <>,
        "Linux F2FS DEV, Mailing List" 
        linux-ext4 <>,
        linux-block <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        open list <>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <>,
        linux-mm <>, Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Andreas Dilger <>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <>,
        Theodore Ts'o <>, Chao Yu <>,
        Hugh Dickins <>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <>,
        Matthew Wilcox <>,
        Chao Yu <>,,
        Johannes Weiner <>,
        Roman Gushchin <>,
Subject: Re: mm: mkfs.ext4 invoked oom-killer on i386 - pagecache_get_page

Hi Naresh,

Naresh Kamboju writes:
>As a part of investigation on this issue LKFT teammate Anders Roxell
>git bisected the problem and found bad commit(s) which caused this problem.
>The following two patches have been reverted on next-20200519 and retested the
>reproducible steps and confirmed the test case mkfs -t ext4 got PASS.
>( invoked oom-killer is gone now)
>Revert "mm, memcg: avoid stale protection values when cgroup is above
>    This reverts commit 23a53e1c02006120f89383270d46cbd040a70bc6.
>Revert "mm, memcg: decouple e{low,min} state mutations from protection
>    This reverts commit 7b88906ab7399b58bb088c28befe50bcce076d82.

Thanks Anders and Naresh for tracking this down and reverting.

I'll take a look tomorrow. I don't see anything immediately obviously wrong in 
either of those commits from a (very) cursory glance, but they should only be 
taking effect if protections are set.

Since you have i386 hardware available, and I don't, could you please apply 
only "avoid stale protection" again and check if it only happens with that 
commit, or requires both? That would help narrow down the suspects.

Do you use any memcg protections in these tests?

Thank you!


Powered by blists - more mailing lists