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]
Date:   Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:18:51 +0100
From:   Nils Holland <>
To:     Michal Hocko <>
Cc:     Tetsuo Handa <>,,,
        Chris Mason <>, David Sterba <>,
Subject: Re: OOM: Better, but still there on

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:51:57AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> drop the last patch, check whether memory cgroup is enabled and retest
> with cgroup_disable=memory to see whether this is memcg related and if
> it is _not_ then try to test with the patch below

Right, it seems we might be looking in the right direction! So I
removed the previous patch from my kernel and verified if memory
cgroup was enabled, and indeed, it was. So I booted with
cgroup_disable=memory and ran my ordinary test again ... and in fact,
no ooms! I could have the firefox sources building and unpack half a
dozen big tarballs, which would previously with 99% certainty already
trigger an OOM upon unpacking the first tarball. Also, the system
seemed to run noticably "nicer", in the sense that the other processes
I had running (like htop) would not get delayed / hung. The new patch
you sent has, as per your instructions, NOT been applied.

I've provided a log of this run, it's available at:

As no OOMs or other bad situations occured, no memory information was
forcibly logged. However, about three times I triggered a memory info
manually via SysReq, because I guess that might be interesting for you
to look at.

I'd like to run the same test on my second machine as well just to
make sure that cgroup_disable=memory has an effect there too. I
should be able to do that later tonight and will report back as soon
as I know more!

> I would appreciate to stick with your setup to not pull new unknows into
> the picture.

No problem! It's just likely that I won't be able to test during the
following days until Dec 27th, but after that I should be back to
normal and thus be able to run further tests in a timely fashion. :-)


Powered by blists - more mailing lists