linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/3] OOM vs. freezer interaction fixes

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1412777266-8251-1-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz>
Date:	Wed,  8 Oct 2014 16:07:43 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"\\\"Rafael J. Wysocki\\\"" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] OOM vs. freezer interaction fixes

Hi Andrew, Rafael,

this has been originally discussed here [1] but didn't lead anywhere AFAICS
so I would like to resurrect them.

The first and third patch are regression fixes and they are a stable
material IMO. The second patch is a simple cleanup.

The 1st patch is fixing a regression introduced in 3.3 since when OOM
killer is not able to kill any frozen task and live lock as a result.
The fix gets us back to the 3.2. As it turned out during the discussion [2]
this was still not 100% sufficient and that's why we need the 3rd patch.

I was thinking about the proper 1st vs. 3rd patch ordering because
the 1st patch basically opens a race window fixed by the later patch.
Original patch from Cong Wang has covered this by cgroup_freezing(current)
check in should_thaw_current(). But this approach still suffers from OOM
vs. PM freezer interaction (OOM killer would still live lock waiting for a
PM frozen task this time).

So I think the most straight forward way is to address only OOM vs.
frozen task interaction in the first patch, mark it for stable 3.3+ and
leave the race to a separate follow up patch which is applicable to
stable 3.2+ (before a3201227f803 made it inefficient).

Switching 1st and 3rd patches would make some sense as well but then
it might end up even more confusing because we would be fixing a
non-existent issue in upstream first...

---
[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=140986986423092
[2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=141074263721166

--
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/