linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] oom: select_bad_process: check PF

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, 2 Jun 2010 14:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] oom: select_bad_process: check PF_KTHREAD instead
 of !mm to skip kthreads

On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

> > Again, the question is whether or not the fix is rc material or not, 
> > otherwise there's no difference in the route that it gets upstream: the 
> > patch is duplicated in both series.  If you feel that this minor issue 
> > (which has never been reported in at least the last three years and 
> > doesn't have any side effects other than a couple of millisecond delay 
> > until unuse_mm() when the oom killer will kill something else) should be 
> > addressed in 2.6.35-rc2, then that's a conversation to be had with Andrew.
> 
> Well, we have bugfix-at-first development rule. Why do you refuse our
> development process?
> 

This isn't a bugfix, it simply prevents a recall to the oom killer after 
the kthread has called unuse_mm().  Please show where any side effects of 
oom killing a kthread, which cannot exit, as a result of use_mm() causes a 
problem _anywhere_.

If that's the definition you have for a "bugfix," then I could certainly 
argue that some of my patches like "oom: filter tasks not sharing the same 
cpuset" is a bugfix because it allows needlessly killing tasks that won't 
free memory for current, or "oom: avoid oom killer for lowmem allocations" 
is a bugfix because it allows killing a task that won't free lowmem, etc.

I agree that this is a nice patch to have to avoid that recall later, 
which is why I merged it into my patchset, but let's please be accurate 
about its impact.
--
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/