linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] mm, oom: Fix race when selecting process to kill

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: <CANMivWZFXYGB_95WqToKEUyMsKMS2nQ4p5a_-Lte-=bhCC5u2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:08:44 -0800
From:	Sameer Nanda <snanda@...omium.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mhocko@...e.cz,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Luigi Semenzato <semenzato@...gle.com>, murzin.v@...il.com,
	dserrg@...il.com, "msb@...omium.org" <msb@...omium.org>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm, oom: Fix race when selecting process to kill

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 11/11, Sameer Nanda wrote:
>>
>> The selection of the process to be killed happens in two spots:
>> first in select_bad_process and then a further refinement by
>> looking for child processes in oom_kill_process. Since this is
>> a two step process, it is possible that the process selected by
>> select_bad_process may get a SIGKILL just before oom_kill_process
>> executes. If this were to happen, __unhash_process deletes this
>> process from the thread_group list. This results in oom_kill_process
>> getting stuck in an infinite loop when traversing the thread_group
>> list of the selected process.
>>
>> Fix this race by adding a pid_alive check for the selected process
>> with tasklist_lock held in oom_kill_process.
>
> OK, looks correct to me. Thanks.
>
>
> Yes, this is a step backwards, hopefully we will revert this patch soon.
> I am starting to think something like while_each_thread_lame_but_safe()
> makes sense before we really fix this nasty (and afaics not simple)
> problem with with while_each_thread() (which should die).

Looking forward to a real fix for the nasty problems with
while_each_thread.  In the meanwhile, let me float one more
(hopefully, the last) version of this patch that should address
Michal's concern.  Thanks for your feedback!

>
> Oleg.
>



-- 
Sameer
--
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/