[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZjVAJOsC-EtlIXd6@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 12:51:00 -0700
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Allen Pais <apais@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org,
jack@...e.cz, ebiederm@...ssion.com, keescook@...omium.org,
j.granados@...sung.com, allen.lkml@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fs/coredump: Enable dynamic configuration of max file
note size
Thanks for the cleanups, this is certainly now in the right direction.
Generic long term growth questions below.
On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 11:56:03PM +0000, Allen Pais wrote:
> Why is this being done?
> We have observed that during a crash when there are more than 65k mmaps
> in memory, the existing fixed limit on the size of the ELF notes section
> becomes a bottleneck. The notes section quickly reaches its capacity,
I'm not well versed here on how core dumps associate mmaps to ELF notes
section, can you elaborate? Does each new mmap potentially peg
information on ELF notes section? Where do we standardize on this? Does
it also change depending on any criteria of the mmap?
Depending on the above, we might want to be proactive to get a sense of
when we want to go beyond the new 16 MiB max cap on new mmaps for instance.
How many mmaps can we have anyway too?
> leading to incomplete memory segment information in the resulting coredump.
> This truncation compromises the utility of the coredumps, as crucial
> information about the memory state at the time of the crash might be
> omitted.
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists