linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] [PATCH i386] during VM oom condition, kill all threads in process group

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]

Message-ID: <20070607231621.GB32549@kryten>
Date:	Thu, 7 Jun 2007 18:16:21 -0500
From:	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Will Schmidt <will_schmidt@...t.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, liuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] [PATCH i386] during VM oom condition, kill all threads in process group

 
Hi,

> zap_other_threads() requires tasklist_lock.
> 
> If we're going to do this then we should probably create some new function
> (with a better name) which takes tasklsit_lock and then calls
> zap_other_threads().
> 
> Does this patch fix any observed-in-the-real-world problem?  If so, please
> describe it.

Yeah we have had complaints where threaded apps have only one thread
shot down instead of the entire process. This leaves the application in
a bad state, whereas if it had been killed cleanly the application could
have restarted.

My understanding is that fatal signals should kill all threads in the
group.

Anton
-
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/