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: <1181330358.21409.31.camel@farscape.rchland.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:19:18 -0500
From:	Will Schmidt <will_schmidt@...t.ibm.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] [PATCH i386] during VM oom condition, kill all
	threads in process group

On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 17:10 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 18:16:21 -0500
> Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org> wrote:
> 
> >  
> > Hi,
> > 
> > > zap_other_threads() requires tasklist_lock.

Yup, I missed that.   Thanks for pointing it out.

> > > 
> > > 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().

I expect this will be a write_lock_irq() since zap_other_threads will be
doing a bit more than just reading the task info.

This will be down in a do-page-fault failure path (see
arch/*/mm/fault.c).  I wonder if calling write_lock is going to be safe,
or if its possible to get into a deadlock?  i.e. should I branch back up
to the survive: label if I can't take the lock?  Would that even be
sufficient? or is it not an issue here? 

> > > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> 
> OK, well could we please get all that info appropriatelt captured in #2's
> changelog?
Yup, next spin I'll add more to the changelog. 

> 
> Other architectures will probably need to implement this.

-Will

-
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/