linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "kmemleak: allow to coexist with fault injection"

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: <20190727101352.GA14316@arrakis.emea.arm.com>
Date:   Sat, 27 Jul 2019 11:13:53 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Cc:     Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>, mhocko@...e.com,
        dvyukov@...gle.com, rientjes@...gle.com, willy@...radead.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "kmemleak: allow to coexist with fault injection"

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 02:23:30PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> As mentioned in anther thread, the situation for kmemleak under memory pressure
> has already been unhealthy. I don't feel comfortable to make it even worse by
> reverting this commit alone. This could potentially make kmemleak kill itself
> easier and miss some more real memory leak later.
> 
> To make it really a short-term solution before the reverting, I think someone
> needs to follow up with the mempool solution with tunable pool size mentioned
> in,
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20190328145917.GC10283@arrakis.emea.arm.com/

Before my little bit of spare time disappears, let's add the tunable to
the mempool size so that I can repost the patch. Are you ok with a
kernel cmdline parameter or you'd rather change it at runtime? The
latter implies a minor extension to mempool to allow it to refill on
demand. I'd personally go for the former.

-- 
Catalin