linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] kthread: Make kthread

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:	Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, oleg@...hat.com, security@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kthread: Make kthread_create() killable.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013, Tetsuo Handa wrote:

> > wait_for_completion() is scary if that completion requires memory that 
> > cannot be allocated because the caller is killed but uninterruptible.
> 
> I don't think these lines are specific to wait_for_completion() users.
> 
> Currently the OOM killer is disabled throughout from "the moment the OOM killer
> chose a process to kill" to "the moment the task_struct of the chosen process
> becomes unreachable". Any blocking functions which wait in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> (e.g. mutex_lock()) can disable the OOM killer if the current thread is chosen
> by the OOM killer. Therefore, any users of blocking functions which wait in
> TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE are considered scary if they assume that the current
> thread will not be chosen by the OOM killer.
> 

Yeah, that's always been true.

> But it seems to me that re-enabling the OOM killer at some point is more
> realizable than purging all such users.
> 
> To re-enable the OOM killer at some point, the OOM killer needs to choose more
> processes if the to-be-killed process cannot be terminated within an adequate
> period.
> 
> For example, add "unsigned long memdie_stamp;" to "struct task_struct" and do
> "p->memdie_stamp = jiffies + 5 * HZ;" before "set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);"
> and do
> 
>  	if (test_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_MEMDIE)) {
>  		if (unlikely(frozen(task)))
>  			__thaw_task(task);
> +		/* Choose more processes if the chosen process cannot die. */
> +		if (time_after(jiffies, p->memdie_stamp) &&
> +		    task->state == TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
> +		        return OOM_SCAN_CONTINUE;
>  		if (!force_kill)
>  			return OOM_SCAN_ABORT;
>  	}
> 
> in oom_scan_process_thread().
> 

There may not be any eligible processes left and then the machine panics.  
These time-based delays also have caused a complete depletion of memory 
reserves if more than one process is chosen and each consumes an 
non-neglible amount of memory which would then cause livelock.  We used to 
have a jiffies-based rekill in 2.6.18 internally and we finally could 
remove it when mm->mmap_sem issues were fixed (mostly by checking for 
fatal_signal_pending() and aborting when necessary).

> [PATCH v3] kthread: Make kthread_create() killable.
> 
> Any user process callers of wait_for_completion() except global init process
> might be chosen by the OOM killer while waiting for completion() call by some
> other process which does memory allocation.
> 
> When such users are chosen by the OOM killer when they are waiting for
> completion() in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, the system will be kept stressed
> due to memory starvation because the OOM killer cannot kill such users.
> 
> kthread_create() is one of such users and this patch fixes the problem for
> kthreadd by making kthread_create() killable.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>

Absolutely, thanks.
--
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/