[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090604135050.ceb6bf18.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:50:50 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Salman Qazi <sqazi@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: A bug in read operation for /dev/zero and a proposed fix.
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Salman Qazi <sqazi@...gle.com> wrote:
> While running 20 parallel instances of dd as follows:
>
> #!/bin/bash
>
> for i in `seq 1 20`; do
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/export/hda3/dd_$i bs=1073741824 count=1 &
> done
> wait
>
> on a 16G machine, we noticed that rather than just killing the
> processes, the entire kernel went down. Stracing dd reveals that it first
> does an mmap2, which makes 1GB worth of zero page mappings. Then it
> performs
> a read on those pages from /dev/zero, and finally it performs a write.
> The
> machine died during the reads. Looking at the code, it was noticed that
> /dev/zero's read operation had been changed at some point from giving
> zero page mappings to actually zeroing the page. The zeroing of the
> pages causes physical pages to be allocated to the process.
erk, Nick broke dd(1):
commit 557ed1fa2620dc119adb86b34c614e152a629a80
Author: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Date: Tue Oct 16 01:24:40 2007 -0700
remove ZERO_PAGE
This is the first report I've seen of problems arising from that
change.
> But, when
> the process exhausts all the memory that it can, the kernel cannot kill
> it, as it is still in the kernel mode allocating more memory.
> Consequently,
> the kernel eventually crashes.
>
> To fix this, I propose that when a fatal signal is pending during
> /dev/zero read operation, we simply return and let the user process die.
> Here is a patch that does that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Salman Qazi <sqazi@...gle.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/char/mem.c b/drivers/char/mem.c
> index 8f05c38..2ffa36e 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/mem.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/mem.c
> @@ -696,6 +696,11 @@ static ssize_t read_zero(struct file * file, char __user * buf,
> break;
> buf += chunk;
> count -= chunk;
> + /* The exit code here doesn't actually matter, as userland
> + * will never see it.
> + */
> + if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> + return -ENOMEM;
> cond_resched();
> }
> return written ? written : -EFAULT;
OK. I think.
It's presumptuous to return -ENOMEM: we don't _know_ that this signal
came from the oom-killer. It would be better to return -EINTR here.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists