linux-kernel - Re: Will the recent memory leak fixes be backported to longterm kernels?

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: <20181102160122.GH194472@sasha-vm>
Date:   Fri, 2 Nov 2018 12:01:22 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
Cc:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Stable@...r.kernel.org" <Stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Will the recent memory leak fixes be backported to longterm
 kernels?

On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 02:45:42AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
>> From: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 17:58
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:16:02AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
>> Hello, Dexuan!
>>
>> A couple of issues has been revealed recently, here are fixes
>> (hashes are from the next tree):
>>
>> 5f4b04528b5f mm: don't reclaim inodes with many attached pages
>> 5a03b371ad6a mm: handle no memcg case in memcg_kmem_charge()
>> properly
>>
>> These two patches should be added to the serie.
>
>Thanks for the new info!
>
>> Re stable backporting, I'd really wait for some time. Memory reclaim is a
>> quite complex and fragile area, so even if patches are correct by themselves,
>> they can easily cause a regression by revealing some other issues (as it was
>> with the inode reclaim case).
>
>I totally agree. I'm now just wondering if there is any temporary workaround,
>even if that means we have to run the kernel with some features disabled or
>with a suboptimal performance?

I'm not sure what workload you're seeing it on, but if you could merge
these 7 patches and see that it solves the problem you're seeing and
doesn't cause any regressions it'll be a useful test for the rest of us.

--
Thanks,
Sasha