linux-kernel - [rfc][patch 0/5] 2.6.19-rc1: oom killer fixes

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20061012120102.29671.31163.sendpatchset@linux.site>
Date:	Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:09:34 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: [rfc][patch 0/5] 2.6.19-rc1: oom killer fixes

I've been prompted to take another look through the OOM killer because it
turns out it is killing tasks that have had their oom_adj set to -17 (which
is supposed to make them unkillable).

So there are a number of problems, firstly, the child and sibling thread
killing routines do not account for -17 children/siblings.

Secondly, most architecture specific pagefault handlers do a direct kill
of the current process if it takes a VM_FAULT_OOM. This is a pretty rare
thing to happen, because there isn't a lot of higher order allocations
happening, but it is not impossible. I think we can just call into the
OOM killer here, and return to userspace... but I'd like comments about
this.

Thanks,
Nick
--
SuSE Labs

-
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/