linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: fix negative commitlimit when gigantic hugepages are allocated

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

Message-Id: <20110609164408.8370746e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 9 Jun 2011 16:44:08 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	aquini@...ux.com
Cc:	Russ Anderson <rja@....com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, rja@...ricas.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix negative commitlimit when gigantic hugepages
 are allocated

On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 23:55:57 -0300
Rafael Aquini <aquini@...ux.com> wrote:

> When 1GB hugepages are allocated on a system, free(1) reports
> less available memory than what really is installed in the box.
> Also, if the total size of hugepages allocated on a system is
> over half of the total memory size, CommitLimit becomes
> a negative number.
> 
> The problem is that gigantic hugepages (order > MAX_ORDER)
> can only be allocated at boot with bootmem, thus its frames
> are not accounted to 'totalram_pages'. However,  they are
> accounted to hugetlb_total_pages()
> 
> What happens to turn CommitLimit into a negative number
> is this calculation, in fs/proc/meminfo.c:
> 
>         allowed = ((totalram_pages - hugetlb_total_pages())
>                 * sysctl_overcommit_ratio / 100) + total_swap_pages;
> 
> A similar calculation occurs in __vm_enough_memory() in mm/mmap.c.
> 
> Also, every vm statistic which depends on 'totalram_pages' will render
> confusing values, as if system were 'missing' some part of its memory.

Is this bug serious enough to justify backporting the fix into -stable
kernels?

--
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/