linux-kernel - Re: [patch 07/11 -mmotm] oom: prevent possible OOM

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:	Mon, 11 May 2009 14:22:34 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	gregkh@...e.de, npiggin@...e.de, mel@....ul.ie,
	a.p.ziljstra@...llo.nl, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
	dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, san@...roid.com, arve@...roid.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 07/11 -mmotm] oom: prevent possible OOM_DISABLE livelock

On Sun, 10 May 2009 15:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
>

The changelog perplexes me.

> This moves the check for OOM_DISABLE to the badness heuristic while
> holding task_lock().

why?

>  Badness scores of 0 are now explicitly prohibited
> from being oom killed

why?

> and since the oom_adj value is a characteristic of
> an mm and not a task, it is no longer necessary to check the oom_adj
> value for threads sharing the same memory (except when simply issuing
> SIGKILLs for threads in other thread groups).

ok...


The title says that this patch fixes a livelock.  But the changelog
didn't describe that livelock and didn't tell us how the patch fixed
it.
--
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/