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  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:	Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:56:57 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <>
Cc:	Michal Hocko <>,
	Cong Wang <>,
	LKML <>,
	David Rientjes <>,
	Andrew Morton <>
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 1/2] freezer: check OOM kill while being frozen

On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 06:43:31PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, September 13, 2014 08:59:35 AM Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Doesn't this mean that if PM freezing and OOM killing race each other,
> > the system may hang?  Driver PM operation may try to allocate memory
> > -> triggers OOM -> OOM killer selects an already frozen task ->
> > nothing happens.  I wonder whether OOM killing and PM operations
> > should be mutually exclusive at a higher level.  e.g. make OOM killing
> > always override freezing but let hibernation abort operation before
> > taking snapshot if OOM killing has happened since the beginning of the
> > PM operation.
> As Michal noted, we do oom_killer_disable() in freeze_processes(), so the
> scenario above cannot actually happen to my eyes.  Or am I missing anything?

Ah, okay, that's better but it doesn't seem enough.  It does prevent
new invocations of the oom killer but doesn't do anything if oom
killing is already in progress.  If we do block out oom killing
properly across PM freeze/thaw, it shoud be fine.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists