linux-kernel - Re: [patch] mm: memcg: do not declare OOM from __GFP

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, 27 Nov 2013 13:38:59 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm: memcg: do not declare OOM from __GFP_NOFAIL
 allocations

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013, Johannes Weiner wrote:

> > Ah, this is because of 3168ecbe1c04 ("mm: memcg: use proper memcg in limit 
> > bypass") which just bypasses all of these allocations and charges the root 
> > memcg.  So if allocations want to bypass memcg isolation they just have to 
> > be __GFP_NOFAIL?
> 
> I don't think we have another option.
> 

We don't give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to memory reserves in the 
page allocator and we do call the oom killer for them so that a process is 
killed so that memory is freed.  Why do we have a different policy for 
memcg?
--
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/