lists.openwall.net | 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 14:52:08 +0530 From: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org> To: Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name> Cc: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>, "Linux F2FS DEV, Mailing List" <linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: mm: mkfs.ext4 invoked oom-killer on i386 - pagecache_get_page On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 00:39, Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name> 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. CONFIG_MEMCG=y CONFIG_MEMCG_SWAP=y CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM=y kernel config link, https://builds.tuxbuild.com/8lg6WQibcwtQRRtIa0bcFA/kernel.config - Naresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists