linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7] mm: Add memory allocation watchdog kernel thread.

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201703132245.FBC17698.VtLSFMFOOFOJQH@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2017 22:45:05 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:     mhocko@...nel.org
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, david@...morbit.com,
        apolyakov@...et.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] mm: Add memory allocation watchdog kernel thread.

Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sat 11-03-17 10:46:58, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > In most cases, administrators can't capture even SysRq-t; let alone vmcore.
> > Therefore, automatic watchdog is highly appreciated. Have you considered this aspect?
> 
> yes I have. I tend to work with our SUSE L3 and enterprise customer a
> lot last 10 years. And what I claim is that adding more watchdog doesn't
> necessarily mean we will get better bug reports. I do not have any exact
> statistics but my perception is that allocation lockups tends to be less
> than 1% of reported bugs. You seem to make a huge issue from this
> particular class of issues basing your argumentation on "unknown
> issues which might have been allocation lockups etc." I am not feeling
> comfortable with this kind of arguing and making any decision on them.

Allocation lockups might be less than 1% of _reported_ bugs.
What I'm talking about is that there will be _unreported_ (and therefore
unrecognized/unsolved) bugs caused by memory allocation behavior.
You are refusing to make an attempt to prove/verify/handle it.

> 
> So let me repeat (for the last time). I find your watchdog interesting
> for stress testing but I am not convinced this is generally useful for
> real workloads and the maintenance burden is worth it. I _might_ be
> wrong here and that is why this is _no_ a NAK from me but I feel
> uncomfortable how hard you are pushing this.

If you worry about false positives and/or side effects of watchdog, you can
disable it in your distribution (i.e. SUSE). There are developers/users/customers
who will be helped by it.

> 
> I expect this is my last word on this.

After all, there is no real objection. Andrew, what do you think?