linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] MM_CID and HPCC mm

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: <20251222175957.bfc9cf8b25e587f3f5e304bc@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 17:59:57 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
 linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] MM_CID and HPCC mm_struct static init fixes

On Sun, 21 Dec 2025 18:29:21 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:

> Mark Brown reported a regression [1] on linux next due to the
> hierarchical percpu counters (HPCC). You mentioned they were only in
> mm-new (and therefore not pulled into -next) [2], but it looks like they
> got more exposure that we expected. :)

We try to please ;)

Mark's report is why this series remains in mm-new and didn't get
promoted to mm-unstable (and hence linux-next).

Also, I anticipate a new version of this series thanks to
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/2fb78e41-5e56-425f-925f-a29524355d2c@efficios.com

> This bug hunting got me to fix static initialization issues in both
> MM_CID (for upstream) and HPCC (mm-new). Mark tested my series and
> confirmed that it fixes his issues.
> 
> Please consider the HPCC fixes for mm-new, and the MM_CID fixes for
> upstream.
> 
> This series is based on mm-new
> commit 287373d0b6ee ("selftests/mm: fix comment for check_test_requirements")

Well, simply appending this series to your "mm: Fix OOM killer
inaccuracy on large many-core systems, v10" will create an annoying
bisection hole.

Also, there are some cc:stable fixes in here which depend upon the
presence of "mm: Fix OOM killer inaccuracy on large many-core systems"
series, which is all backwards.


So for now I'll toss this series in there for testing but I'll ask for
a redo, please.

- All cc:stable patches prepared in a standalone fashion against
  latest mainline.

- Any non-cc:stable patches which fix things in current mm-new come
  next.  Perhaps view these as preparation for "mm: Fix OOM killer
  inaccuracy on large many-core systems".

- Then "mm: Fix OOM killer inaccuracy on large many-core systems,
  v11" which incorporates anything which didn't make it into the above
  two categories.

That could be as many as three patch series. Thanks.