linux-kernel - Re: [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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAM_iQpVotwZ50ntff8wvoXFeq3i9k_0xw+pDkrBc0hRDF7qPTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 8 Oct 2014 21:42:43 -0700
From:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"\\Rafael J. Wysocki\\" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM vs. freezer interaction fixes

Hi, Michal

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> wrote:
> Hi Andrew, Rafael,
>
> this has been originally discussed here [1] but didn't lead anywhere AFAICS
> so I would like to resurrect them.
>

Thanks a lot for taking them for me! I was busy with some networking
stuffs and also actually waiting for Rafael's response to your patch.


> 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).


It should be very rare OOM happens during PM frozen.

>
> 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...
>

Agreed. Up to you, I have no strong opinions here. :)


Again, 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/