linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH for 3.2] memcg: do not trap chargers with full callstack on OOM

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: <20130711072507.GA21667@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Thu, 11 Jul 2013 09:25:07 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	azurIt <azurit@...ox.sk>
Cc:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups mailinglist <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	righi.andrea@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH for 3.2] memcg: do not trap chargers with full callstack
 on OOM

On Wed 10-07-13 18:25:06, azurIt wrote:
> >> Now i realized that i forgot to remove UID from that cgroup before
> >> trying to remove it, so cgroup cannot be removed anyway (we are using
> >> third party cgroup called cgroup-uid from Andrea Righi, which is able
> >> to associate all user's processes with target cgroup). Look here for
> >> cgroup-uid patch:
> >> https://www.develer.com/~arighi/linux/patches/cgroup-uid/cgroup-uid-v8.patch
> >> 
> >> ANYWAY, i'm 101% sure that 'tasks' file was empty and 'under_oom' was
> >> permanently '1'.
> >
> >This is really strange. Could you post the whole diff against stable
> >tree you are using (except for grsecurity stuff and the above cgroup-uid
> >patch)?
> 
> 
> Here are all patches which i applied to kernel 3.2.48 in my last test:
> http://watchdog.sk/lkml/patches3/

The two patches from Johannes seem correct.

>From a quick look even grsecurity patchset shouldn't interfere as it
doesn't seem to put any code between handle_mm_fault and mm_fault_error
and there also doesn't seem to be any new handle_mm_fault call sites.

But I cannot tell there aren't other code paths which would lead to a
memcg charge, thus oom, without proper FAULT_FLAG_KERNEL handling.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/