linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] Refactor part of the oom report in dump

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:   Mon, 4 Jun 2018 07:58:12 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     禹舟键 <ufo19890607@...il.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...e.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
        penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp, guro@...com,
        yang.s@...baba-inc.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Wind Yu <yuzhoujian@...ichuxing.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] Refactor part of the oom report in dump_header

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 10:41:10AM +0800, 禹舟键 wrote:
> Hi Tetsuo
> > Since origin_memcg_name is printed for both memcg OOM and !memcg OOM, it is strange that origin_memcg_name is updated only when memcg != NULL. Have you really tested !memcg OOM case?
> 
> if memcg == NULL , origin_memcg_name will also be NULL, so the length
> of it is 0. origin_memcg_name will be "(null)". I've tested !memcg OOM
> case with CONFIG_MEMCG and !CONFIG_MEMCG, and found nothing wrong.
> 
> Thanks
> Wind
> 禹舟键 <ufo19890607@...il.com> 于2018年6月4日周一 上午9:58写道：
> >
> > Hi Mike
> > > Please keep the brief description of the function actually brief and move the detailed explanation after the parameters description.
> > Thanks for your advice.
> >
> > > The allocation constraint is detected by the dump_header() callers, why not just use it here?
> > David suggest that constraint need to be printed in the oom report, so
> > I add the enum variable in this function.

My question was why do you call to alloc_constrained in the dump_header()
function rather than pass the constraint that was detected a bit earlier to
that function? 

Sorry if wasn't clear enough.

> > Thanks
> > Wind
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.