linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/2] arch: invoke oom-killer from page fault

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]

Date:	Wed, 5 Jun 2013 20:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] arch: invoke oom-killer from page fault

On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Johannes Weiner wrote:

> Since '1c0fe6e mm: invoke oom-killer from page fault', page fault
> handlers should not directly kill faulting tasks in an out of memory
> condition.

I have no objection to the patch, but there's no explanation given here 
why exiting with a kill shouldn't be done.  Is it because of memory 
reserves and there is no guarantee that current will be able to exit?  Or 
is it just for consistency with other archs?

> Instead, they should be invoking the OOM killer to pick
> the right task.  Convert the remaining architectures.
> 

If this is a matter of memory reserves, I guess you could point people who 
want the current behavior (avoiding the expensiveness of the tasklist scan 
in the oom killer for example) to /proc/sys/vm/oom_kill_allocating_task?

This changelog is a bit cryptic in its motivation.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/