linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] oom: handle overflow in mem_cgroup_out_of

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, 26 Jan 2011 14:29:09 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Cc:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom: handle overflow in mem_cgroup_out_of_memory()

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:32:04 -0800
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com> wrote:

> > That being said, does this have any practical impact at all?  I mean,
> > this code runs when the cgroup limit is breached.  But if the number
> > of allowed pages (not bytes!) can not fit into 32 bits, it means you
> > have a group of processes using more than 16T.  On a 32-bit machine.
> 
> The value of this patch is up for debate.  I do not have an example
> situation where this truncation causes the wrong thing to happen.  I
> suppose it might be possible for a racing update to
> memory.limit_in_bytes which grows the limit from a reasonable (example:
> 100M) limit to a large limit (example 1<<45) could benefit from this
> patch.  I admit that this case seems pathological and may not be likely
> or even worth bothering over.  If neither the memcg nor the oom
> maintainers want the patch, then feel free to drop it.  I just noticed
> the issue and thought it might be worth addressing.

Ah.  I was scratching my head over that.

In zillions of places the kernel assumes that a 32-bit kernel has less
than 2^32 pages of memory, so the code as it stands is, umm, idiomatic.

But afaict the only way the patch makes a real-world difference is if
res_counter_read_u64() is busted?

And, as you point out, res_counter_read_u64() is indeed busted on
32-bit machines.  It has 25 callsites in mm/memcontrol.c - has anyone
looked at the implications of this?  What happens in all those
callsites if the counter is read during a count rollover?

--
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/