linux-kernel - Re: PROBLEM + POSS FIX: kernel stack overflow, xfs, many disks, heavy write load, 8k stack, x86-64

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <4BBF2F18.10507@humyo.com>
Date:	Fri, 09 Apr 2010 14:43:52 +0100
From:	John Berthels <john@...yo.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nick Gregory <nick@...yo.com>,
	Rob Sanderson <rob@...yo.com>, xfs@....sgi.com,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: PROBLEM + POSS FIX: kernel stack overflow, xfs, many disks, heavy
 write load, 8k stack, x86-64

Dave Chinner wrote:

> So effectively the storage subsystem (NFS, filesystem, DM, MD,
> device drivers) have about 4K of stack to work in now. That seems to
> be a lot less than last time I looked at this, and we've been really
> careful not to increase XFS's stack usage for quite some time now.

OK. I should note that we have what appears to be a similar problem on a 
2.6.28 distro kernel, so I'm not sure this is a very recent change. (We 
see the lockups on that kernel, we haven't tried larger stacks + stack 
instrumentation on the earlier kernel).

Do you know if there are any obvious knobs to twiddle to make these 
codepaths less likely? The cluster is resilient against occasional 
server death, but frequent death is more annoying.

We're currently running with sysctls:

net.ipv4.ip_nonlocal_bind=1
kernel.panic=300
vm.dirty_background_ratio=3
vm.min_free_kbytes=16384

I'm not sure what circumstances force the memory reclaim (and why it 
doesn't come from discarding a cached page).

Is the problem is the DMA/DMA32 zone and we should try playing with 
lowmem_reserve_ratio? Is there anything else we could do to keep dirty 
pages out of the low zones?

Before trying THREAD_ORDER 2, we tried doubling the RAM in a couple of 
boxes from 2GB to 4GB without any significant reduction in the problem.

Lastly - if we end up stuck with THREAD_ORDER 2, does anyone know what 
symptoms to look out for to know if unable to allocate thread stacks due 
to fragmentation?

> I'll have to have a bit of a think on this one - if you could
> provide further stack traces as they get deeper (esp. if they go
> past 8k) that would be really handy.

Two of the worst offenders below. We have plenty to send if you would 
like more. Please let us know if you'd like us to try anything else or 
would like other info.

Thanks very much for your thoughts, suggestions and work so far, it's 
very much appreciated here.

regards,

jb

View attachment "stack_traces.txt" of type "text/plain" (7832 bytes)