linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] oom killer: break from infinite loop

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003301326490.5234@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	anfei <anfei.zhou@...il.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom killer: break from infinite loop

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, anfei wrote:

> > > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > index afeab2a..9aae208 100644
> > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > @@ -588,12 +588,8 @@ retry:
> > >  	if (PTR_ERR(p) == -1UL)
> > >  		return;
> > >  
> > > -	/* Found nothing?!?! Either we hang forever, or we panic. */
> > > -	if (!p) {
> > > -		read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> > > -		dump_header(NULL, gfp_mask, order, NULL);
> > > -		panic("Out of memory and no killable processes...\n");
> > > -	}
> > > +	if (!p)
> > > +		p = current;
> > >  
> > >  	if (oom_kill_process(p, gfp_mask, order, points, NULL,
> > >  			     "Out of memory"))
> > 
> > The reason p wasn't selected is because it fails to meet the criteria for 
> > candidacy in select_bad_process(), not necessarily because of a race with 
> > the !p->mm check that the -mm patch cited above fixes.  It's quite 
> > possible that current has an oom_adj value of OOM_DISABLE, for example, 
> > where this would be wrong.
> 
> I see.  And what about changing mem_cgroup_out_of_memory() too?
> 

The memory controller is different because it must kill a task even if 
another task is exiting since the imposed limit has been reached.

> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index 0cb1ca4..9e89a29 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -510,8 +510,10 @@ retry:
>  	if (PTR_ERR(p) == -1UL)
>  		goto out;
>  
> -	if (!p)
> -		p = current;
> +	if (!p) {
> +		read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> +		panic("Out of memory and no killable processes...\n");
> +	}
>  
>  	if (oom_kill_process(p, gfp_mask, 0, points, limit, mem,
>  				"Memory cgroup out of memory"))
> 

This actually does appear to be necessary but for a different reason: if 
current is unkillable because it has OOM_DISABLE, for example, then 
oom_kill_process() will repeatedly fail and mem_cgroup_out_of_memory() 
will infinitely loop.

Kame-san?
--
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/