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, 18 Jun 2020 13:37:43 +0100 From: Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name> To: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> Cc: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>, 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 Yafang Shao writes: >On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:09 AM Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name> wrote: >> >> Naresh Kamboju writes: >> >After this patch applied the reported issue got fixed. >> >> Great! Thank you Naresh and Michal for helping to get to the bottom of this :-) >> >> I'll send out a new version tomorrow with the fixes applied and both of you >> credited in the changelog for the detection and fix. > >As we have already found that the usage around memory.{emin, elow} has >many limitations, I think memory.{emin, elow} should be used for >memcg-tree internally only, that means they can only be used to >calculate the protection of a memcg in a specified memcg-tree but >should not be exposed to other MM parts. I agree that the current semantics are mentally taxing and we should generally avoid exposing the implementation details outside of memcg where possible. Do you have a suggested rework? :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists