linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/5] oom: cleanup android low memory killer

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: <20090504225936.GA9876@kroah.com>
Date:	Mon, 4 May 2009 15:59:36 -0700
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, San Mehat <san@...roid.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/5] oom: cleanup android low memory killer

On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 03:35:08PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2009, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > Are these the patches already in my tree?
> > 
> > If so, David, just respin your patches against the linux-next tree and
> > resend them, that should be sufficient.
> > 
> 
> This patch in the series is really more of a convenience than anything 
> else since it doesn't change anything functionally.  I had to modify the 
> lowmemorykiller later because there's a potential for a NULL pointer from 
> dereferencing p->mm without holding task_lock(p) and also because I moved 
> oomkilladj from struct task_struct to struct mm_struct.

Is this still the case on top of Arve's changes?

> The entire patchset is really based on the move of p->oomkilladj since it 
> allows us to prevent an oom killer livelock when killing a task that 
> shares memory with an OOM_DISABLE task.  That change obviously has to go 
> through Andrew but lowmemorykiller.c must be also be changed accordingly.
> 
> I'd be fine with dropping my lowmemorykiller changes if they'd like to fix 
> this up themselves.  Otherwise, I need to know the path to which these get 
> into the kernel.

Right now, people are still arguing that the android low memory driver
is not needed, but something is, yet no one has proposed a viable
solution for all parties :(

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/