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  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:   Wed, 6 May 2020 14:59:26 +0200
From:   SeongJae Park <>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <>
CC:     SeongJae Park <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>,
        David Miller <>,
        "Al Viro" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <>,
        <>, netdev <>,
        LKML <>,
        SeongJae Park <>, <>,
        <>, <>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

TL; DR: It was not kernel's fault, but the benchmark program.

So, the problem is reproducible using the lebench[1] only.  I carefully read
it's code again.

Before running the problem occurred "poll big" sub test, lebench executes
"context switch" sub test.  For the test, it sets the cpu affinity[2] and
process priority[3] of itself to '0' and '-20', respectively.  However, it
doesn't restore the values to original value even after the "context switch" is
finished.  For the reason, "select big" sub test also run binded on CPU 0 and
has lowest nice value.  Therefore, it can disturb the RCU callback thread for
the CPU 0, which processes the deferred deallocations of the sockets, and as a
result it triggers the OOM.

We confirmed the problem disappears by offloading the RCU callbacks from the
CPU 0 using rcu_nocbs=0 boot parameter or simply restoring the affinity and/or

Someone _might_ still argue that this is kernel problem because the problem
didn't occur on the old kernels prior to the Al's patches.  However, setting
the affinity and priority was available because the program received the
permission.  Therefore, it would be reasonable to blame the system
administrators rather than the kernel.

So, please ignore this patchset, apology for making confuse.  If you still has
some doubts or need more tests, please let me know.


SeongJae Park

Powered by blists - more mailing lists