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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 10:53:12 +0900 From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp> To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org, jack@...e.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, tytso@....edu, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [syzbot] possible deadlock in start_this_handle (3) On 2022/07/15 10:39, Shakeel Butt wrote: >> I think mem_cgroup_print_oom_meminfo() should use GFP_ATOMIC, for it will fall into >> infinite loop if kmalloc(GFP_NOFS) under oom_lock reached __alloc_pages_may_oom() path. > > I would prefer GFP_NOWAIT. This is printing info for memcg OOMs and if > the system is low on memory then memcg OOMs has lower importance than > the system state. Since killing a process in some memcg likely helps solving global OOM state, system OOM condition might not be reported when memory allocation by mem_cgroup_print_oom_meminfo() caused system OOM condition. Therefore, we don't need to discard output from memcg OOM condition.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists