linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed"

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: <20171005075704.enxdgjteoe4vgbag@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 5 Oct 2017 09:57:04 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...yncelyn.cymru>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is
 killed"

On Wed 04-10-17 19:18:21, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 03:32:45PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
[...]
> > You don't think they should be backported into -stables?
> 
> Good point. For this one, it makes sense to CC stable, for 4.11 and
> up. The second patch is more of a fortification against potential
> future issues, and probably shouldn't go into stable.

I am not against. It is true that the memory reserves depletion fix was
theoretical because I haven't seen any real life bug. I would argue that
the more robust allocation failure behavior is a stable candidate as
well, though, because the allocation can fail regardless of the vmalloc
revert. It is less likely but still possible.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs