linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2]mm/oom-kill: direct hardware access processes should get bonus

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:07:10 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, "Figo.zhang" <figo1802@...il.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2]mm/oom-kill: direct hardware access processes should get bonus

> > the victim should not directly access hardware devices like Xorg server,
> > because the hardware could be left in an unpredictable state, although 
> > user-application can set /proc/pid/oom_score_adj to protect it. so i think
> > those processes should get 3% bonus for protection.
> > 
> 
> The logic here is wrong: if killing these tasks can leave hardware in an 
> unpredictable state (and that state is presumably harmful), then they 
> should be completely immune from oom killing since you're still leaving 
> them exposed here to be killed.
> 
> So the question that needs to be answered is: why do these threads deserve 
> to use 3% more memory (not >4%) than others without getting killed?  If 
> there was some evidence that these threads have a certain quantity of 
> memory they require as a fundamental attribute of CAP_SYS_RAWIO, then I 
> have no objection, but that's going to be expressed in a memory quantity 
> not a percentage as you have here.

3% is choosed by you :-/


> The CAP_SYS_ADMIN heuristic has a background: it is used in the oom killer 
> because we have used the same 3% in __vm_enough_memory() for a long time 
> and we want consistency amongst the heuristics.  Adding additional bonuses 
> with arbitrary values like 3% of memory for things like CAP_SYS_RAWIO 
> makes the heuristic less predictable and moves us back toward the old 
> heuristic which was almost entirely arbitrary.

That's bogus. __vm_enough_memory() does track virtual adress space. oom-killer
doesn't. It's unrelated.


> Now before KOSAKI-san comes out and says the old heuristic considered 
> CAP_SYS_RAWIO and the new one does not so it _must_ be a regression: the 
> old heuristic also divided the badness score by 4 for that capability as a 
> completely arbitrary value (just like 3% is here).  Other traits like 
> runtime and nice levels were also removed from the heuristic.  What needs 
> to be shown is that CAP_SYS_RAWIO requires additional memory just to run 
> or we should neglect to free 3% of memory, which could be gigabytes, 
> because it has this trait.

Old background is very simple and cleaner. 

CAP_SYS_RESOURCE mean the process has a privilege of using more resource.
then, oom-killer gave it additonal bonus.

CAP_SYS_RAWIO mean the process has a direct hardware access privilege
(eg X.org, RDB). and then, killing it might makes system crash.


In another story, somebody doubt 4x bonus is good or not. but 3% has
the same problem.




--
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/