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  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 17:41:21 +0100
From:   Chris Down <>
To:     Naresh Kamboju <>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <>,
        Yafang Shao <>,
        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

Naresh Kamboju writes:
>On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 20:33, Michal Hocko <> wrote:
>> On Fri 22-05-20 02:23:09, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>> > My apology !
>> > As per the test results history this problem started happening from
>> > Bad : next-20200430 (still reproducible on next-20200519)
>> > Good : next-20200429
>> >
>> > The git tree / tag used for testing is from linux next-20200430 tag and reverted
>> > following three patches and oom-killer problem fixed.
>> >
>> > Revert "mm, memcg: avoid stale protection values when cgroup is above
>> > protection"
>> > Revert "mm, memcg: decouple e{low,min} state mutations from protectinn checks"
>> > Revert "mm-memcg-decouple-elowmin-state-mutations-from-protection-checks-fix"
>> The discussion has fragmented and I got lost TBH.
>> In
>> you have said that none of the added tracing output has triggered. Does
>> this still hold? Because I still have a hard time to understand how
>> those three patches could have the observed effects.
>On the other email thread [1] this issue is concluded.
>Yafang wrote on May 22 2020,
>Regarding the root cause, my guess is it makes a similar mistake that
>I tried to fix in the previous patch that the direct reclaimer read a
>stale protection value.  But I don't think it is worth to add another
>fix. The best way is to revert this commit.

This isn't a conclusion, just a guess (and one I think is unlikely). For this 
to reliably happen, it implies that the same race happens the same way each 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists