linux-kernel - Re: 5.4+: PAGE FAULT crashes the system multiple times per 24h

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2689744f-f981-84f6-eee3-8416d3dc3b22@xs4all.nl>
Date:   Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:04:37 +0100
From:   Udo van den Heuvel <udovdh@...all.nl>
To:     unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
Cc:     "linux-mm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 5.4+: PAGE FAULT crashes the system multiple times per 24h

On 10-02-2020 18:01, Gabriel C wrote:
> But try to boot a kernel with only what you need to boot when hunting bugs.
> As an example, if such a kernel works then you know for sure one of
> the option or a combination causes bugs.

These options are reasonable and necessary; so far things worked OK.
So why would they start being an issue?
And how can I even proceed when the kernel cannot find a rootfs anymore
while bisecting?
5.5.2 also has the page fault issue.
So why Linus does call 5.5.x 'stable' is beyond me.

How can I continue and find the root cause for the page fault hang?

> The force parameter is used to try to enable ACPI on HW has is OFF by
> default, you don't need that.

I booted 5.5.3 without acpi=force and dmesg output with `acpi` in it
looks similar.
So acpi=force wil be removed from future kernel commandlines.

>> We want to use discard on our ssd's.
> 
> Use mount options?

Not enough to make it work for LUKS.

>> elevator=mq-deadline
>> We want a different scheduler for ssd versus hdd.
> 
> If you really want that you should use udev rules for SSD/NVME/HDD/USB etc.

/etc/rc.d/rc.local is easier.
Look at the overhead of a service file.

Same as the overhead of NetworkManager versus a few kilobytes of
network-scripts.
But Fedora thinks otherwise....

Kind regards,
Udo