linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: disable `vm.max_map

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: <20171127162207.GA8265@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 27 Nov 2017 08:22:07 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Mikael Pettersson <mikpelinux@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: disable `vm.max_map_count' sysctl limit

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:12:32AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sun 26-11-17 17:09:32, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> > - Reaching the limit causes various memory management system calls to
> >   fail with ENOMEM, which is a lie.  Combined with the unpredictability
> >   of the number of mappings in a process, especially when non-trivial
> >   memory management or heavy file mapping is used, it can be difficult
> >   to reproduce these events and debug them.  It's also confusing to get
> >   ENOMEM when you know you have lots of free RAM.

[snip]

> Could you be more explicit about _why_ we need to remove this tunable?
> I am not saying I disagree, the removal simplifies the code but I do not
> really see any justification here.

I imagine he started seeing random syscalls failing with ENOMEM and
eventually tracked it down to this stupid limit we used to need.