[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150206203246.GA16924@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 21:32:46 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>,
Nikita Vetoshkin <nekto0n@...dex-team.ru>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Subject: memcg && uaccess (Was: [PATCH 1/2] kernel/fork: handle put_user
errors for CLONE_CHILD_SETTID/CLEARTID)
Add cc's.
On 02/06, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> And in fact I think that this is not set_child_tid/etc-specific. Perhaps
> I am totally confused, but I think that put_user() simply should not fail
> this way. Say, why a syscall should return -EFAULT if memory allocation
> "silently" fails? Confused.
Seriously. I must have missed something, but I can't understand 519e52473eb
"mm: memcg: enable memcg OOM killer only for user faults".
The changelog says:
System calls and kernel faults (uaccess, gup) can handle an out of
memory situation gracefully and just return -ENOMEM.
How can a system call know it should return -ENOMEM if put_user() can only
return -EFAULT ?
Oleg.
--
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