linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.14 108/159] kvm, mm: account kvm related kmem slabs to kmemcg

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]

Date:   Fri, 22 Dec 2017 13:41:22 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.14 108/159] kvm, mm: account kvm related kmem slabs to
 kmemcg

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 10:34:07AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 22-12-17 09:46:33, Greg KH wrote:
> > 4.14-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > 
> > ------------------
> > 
> > From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
> > 
> > 
> > [ Upstream commit 46bea48ac241fe0b413805952dda74dd0c09ba8b ]
> > 
> > The kvm slabs can consume a significant amount of system memory
> > and indeed in our production environment we have observed that
> > a lot of machines are spending significant amount of memory that
> > can not be left as system memory overhead. Also the allocations
> > from these slabs can be triggered directly by user space applications
> > which has access to kvm and thus a buggy application can leak
> > such memory. So, these caches should be accounted to kmemcg.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> 
> The patch is not marked for stable, neither it fixes an existing bug.
> It is a nice to have thing for sure but I am wondering how this got
> through stable-filter. 

Sasha picked it out, and it seemed like a sane thing to backport.  If
you think it's not worthy, I'll gladly drop it, but it seemed like such
a simple bugfix to include.

thanks,

greg k-h