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:   Thu, 21 May 2020 14:52:08 +0530
From:   Naresh Kamboju <>
To:     Chris Down <>
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 <>, Cgroups <>
Subject: Re: mm: mkfs.ext4 invoked oom-killer on i386 - pagecache_get_page

On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 00:39, Chris Down <> wrote:
> 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
> >protection"
> >    This reverts commit 23a53e1c02006120f89383270d46cbd040a70bc6.
> >
> >Revert "mm, memcg: decouple e{low,min} state mutations from protection
> >checks"
> >    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.

Not both.
The bad commit is
"mm, memcg: decouple e{low,min} state mutations from protection checks"

> Do you use any memcg protections in these tests?
I see three MEMCG configs and please find the kernel config link
for more details.


kernel config link,

- Naresh

Powered by blists - more mailing lists