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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 15 Jul 2022 07:24:55 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <>
To:     Jan Kara <>,
Subject: Re: [syzbot] possible deadlock in start_this_handle (3)

On 2022/07/14 23:18, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hello,
> so this lockdep report looks real but is more related to OOM handling than
> to ext4 as such. The immediate problem I can see is that
> mem_cgroup_print_oom_meminfo() which is called under oom_lock calls
> memory_stat_format() which does GFP_KERNEL allocations to allocate buffers
> for dumping of MM statistics. This creates oom_lock -> fs reclaim
> dependency and because OOM can be hit (and thus oom_lock acquired) in
> practically any allocation (regardless of GFP_NOFS) this has a potential of
> creating real deadlock cycles.
> So should mem_cgroup_print_oom_meminfo() be using
> memalloc_nofs_save/restore() to avoid such deadlocks? Or perhaps someone
> sees another solution? Generally allocating memory to report OOM looks a
> bit dangerous to me ;).
> 								Honza

I think mem_cgroup_print_oom_meminfo() should use GFP_ATOMIC, for it will fall into
infinite loop if kmalloc(GFP_NOFS) under oom_lock reached __alloc_pages_may_oom() path.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists