linux-kernel - Re: VM/networking crash cause #1: page allocation failure (order:1, GFP

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 linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <4730F52E.2070807@shaw.ca>
Date:	Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:13:50 -0600
From:	Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca>
To:	Frank van Maarseveen <frankvm@...nkvm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: VM/networking crash cause #1: page allocation failure (order:1,
 GFP_ATOMIC)

Frank van Maarseveen wrote:
> For quite some time I'm seeing occasional lockups spread over 50 different
> machines I'm maintaining. Symptom: a page allocation failure with order:1,
> GFP_ATOMIC, while there is plenty of memory, as it seems (lots of free
> pages, almost no swap used) followed by a lockup (everything dead). I've
> collected all (12) crash cases which occurred the last 10 weeks on 50
> machines total (i.e. 1 crash every 41 weeks on average). The kernel
> messages are summarized to show the interesting part (IMO) they have
> in common. Over the years this has become the crash cause #1 for stable
> kernels for me (fglrx doesn't count ;).
> 
> One note: I suspect that reporting a GFP_ATOMIC allocation failure in an
> network driver via that same driver (netconsole) may not be the smartest
> thing to do and this could be responsible for the lockup itself. However,
> the initial page allocation failure remains and I'm not sure how to
> address that problem.
> 
> I still think the issue is memory fragmentation but if so, it looks
> a bit extreme to me: One system with 2GB of ram crashed after a day,
> merely running a couple of TCP server programs. All systems have either
> 1 or 2GB ram and at least 1G of (merely unused) swap.

These are all order-1 allocations for received network packets that need 
to be allocated out of low memory (assuming you're using a 32-bit 
kernel), so it's quite possible for them to fail on occasion. (Are you 
using jumbo frames?)

That should not be causing a lockup though.. the received packet should 
just get dropped.

-- 
Robert Hancock      Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@...pamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/