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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 18 Jun 2020 22:59:28 +0800
From:   Yafang Shao <>
To:     Chris Down <>
Cc:     Naresh Kamboju <>,
        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, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:37 PM Chris Down <> wrote:
> Yafang Shao writes:
> >On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:09 AM Chris Down <> 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? :-)

Keeping the mem_cgroup_protected() as-is is my suggestion. Anyway I
think it is bad to put memory.{emin, elow} here and there.
If we don't have any better idea by now, just putting all the
references of memory.{emin, elow}  into one
wrapper(mem_cgroup_protected()) is the reasonable solution.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists