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]

Date:	Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:13:56 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	anfei <anfei.zhou@...il.com>, 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,
	"balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom killer: break from infinite loop

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> 
> > > > 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?
> > > 
> > 
> > When a memcg goes into OOM and it only has unkillable processes (OOM_DISABLE),
> > we can do nothing. (we can't panic because container's death != system death.)
> > 
> > Because memcg itself has mutex+waitqueue for mutual execusion of OOM killer, 
> > I think infinite-loop will not be critical probelm for the whole system.
> > 
> > And, now, memcg has oom-kill-disable + oom-kill-notifier features.
> > So, If a memcg goes into OOM and there is no killable process, but oom-kill is
> > not disabled by memcg.....it means system admin's mis-configuraton.
> > 
> > He can stop inifite loop by hand, anyway.
> > # echo 1 > ..../group_A/memory.oom_control
> > 
> 
> Then we should be able to do this since current is by definition 
> unkillable since it was not found in select_bad_process(), right?

To me, this patch is acceptable and seems reasnoable.

But I didn't joined to memcg development when this check was added
and don't know why kill current..

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=c7ba5c9e8176704bfac0729875fa62798037584d

Addinc Balbir to CC. Maybe situation is changed now.
Because we can stop inifinite loop (by hand) and there is no rushing oom-kill
callers, this change is acceptable.

Thanks,
-Kame



> ---
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -500,12 +500,9 @@ void mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *mem, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>  	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>  retry:
>  	p = select_bad_process(&points, limit, mem, CONSTRAINT_NONE, NULL);
> -	if (PTR_ERR(p) == -1UL)
> +	if (!p || PTR_ERR(p) == -1UL)
>  		goto out;
>  
> -	if (!p)
> -		p = current;
> -
>  	if (oom_kill_process(p, gfp_mask, 0, points, limit, mem,
>  				"Memory cgroup out of memory"))
>  		goto retry;
> 

--
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/