linux-kernel - Re: [patch] cpusets: do not allow TIF

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, 06 Jun 2007 09:56:53 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ak@...e.de,
	clameter@...ulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] cpusets: do not allow TIF_MEMDIE tasks to allocate
	globally

On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 00:48 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Paul Jackson wrote:
> 
> > Seems like that mlock code is able then to get great globs of memory
> > without returning to user space ... perhaps that's where the fix
> > should be ... that code should quit chewing up memory if it's
> > marked MEMDIE or some such?
> > 
> 
> That's one case.  Are there others?
> 
> The TIF_MEMDIE exception in cpuset_zone_allowed_softwall() allowed this 
> problem in mlock().  If it had not been allowed to allocate anywhere 
> based simply on the zonelist ordering, the mlock iteration would break 
> because it could not handle the fault.
> 
> Thus, at the least, we should make sure that memory is not allocated 
> outside of a task's mems_allowed unless we do sanity checks against 
> gfp_mask in the TIF_MEMDIE case via cpuset_zone_allowed_softwall() to make 
> sure a rouge application doesn't cause the same trouble.  That is, unless 
> you can guarantee this type of problem will not happen again through any 
> other means.  The logic needs to be with the TIF_MEMDIE exception to grant 
> access to memory outside the cpuset only when it is relevant to the OOM 
> killed task's prompt exit.

I don't think your patch alone would have been sufficient. With it it
would have depleted the local reserves and then jumped onwards to other
nodes (since the ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS allocation doesn't have
ALLOC_CPUSET).

Unless there was a mem-policy restricting the zonelist (not sure if
cpusets and mem-policies are independent like that)

But your point stands.

-
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/