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:   Tue, 9 Aug 2022 18:20:04 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <>
To:     Jiri Slaby <>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,,, Jan Kara <>,
        Ted Ts'o <>,
        Andreas Dilger <>,
        Ext4 Developers List <>,,,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <>
Subject: Re: ext2/zram issue [was: Linux 5.19]

On (22/08/09 18:11), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > /me needs to confirm.
> > > 
> > > With that commit reverted, I see no more I/O errors, only oom-killer
> > > messages (which is OK IMO, provided I write 1G of urandom on a machine w/
> > > 800M of RAM):
> > 
> > Hmm... So handle allocation always succeeds in the slow path? (when we
> > try to allocate it second time)
> Yeah I can see how handle re-allocation with direct reclaim can make it more
> successful, but in exchange it oom-kills some user-space process, I suppose.
> Is oom-kill really a good alternative though?

We likely will need to revert e7be8d1dd983 given that it has some
user visible changes. But, honestly, failing zram write vs oom-kill
a user-space is a tough choice.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists