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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 22:48:29 +0200 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [Patch v4 1/2] freezer: check OOM kill while being frozen On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 12:23:36 AM Tejun Heo wrote: > On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:16:55PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > But OOM killer doesn't kill kernel threads as they do not own any > > memory. So the check should be safe, no? > > Even for userland tasks, try_to_freeze() can currently be anywhere in > the kernel. The frequently used ones are few but there are some odd > ones out, and, again, there's nothing enforcing any structure on > try_to_freeze() usage. The other thing is that we may do quite a bit > during exiting including allocating memory. Are those safe for system > PM? Rafael, what exactly are the rules for PM? What shouldn't > change? We can't make any assumptions regarding the availability of any devices. That is, whatever can end up in device access may potentially fail. Rafael -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists