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: <CAM43=SOAU2-qTB2cHeZs5xGzPFKwoqtTafqtw+BqCP9cbQDUOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:28:27 +0100
From:   Mikael Pettersson <mikpelinux@...il.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: disable `vm.max_map_count' sysctl limit

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>> 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.

Exactly, except the origin (mmap() failing) was hidden behind layers upon layers
of user-space memory management code (not ours), which just said "failed to
allocate N bytes" (with N about 0.001% of the free RAM).  And it
wasn't reproducible.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ