linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/2] oom: sysrq+f shouldn't not panic the system + cleanup

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: <1434621447-21175-1-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz>
Date:	Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:57:25 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] oom: sysrq+f shouldn't not panic the system + cleanup

Hi,
I have split the patch sent previously http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=143323521519798&w=2
into two parts. The first patch prevents from the panic when OOM
killer is sysrq triggered. This is an obvious bug fix and hopefuly not
controversial.

I still believe that combining the regular and the sysrq triggered OOM
paths is ugly, error prone and it deserves a split up which is done in
the second patch. There are no functional changes introduced there.
I have dropped __oom_kill_process part because this one turned out
to be harmless for for the sysrq+f path - I couldn't have found any
interruptible sleep after exit_signals.
I find the resulting code easier to follow (35 (+), 22 (-) sounds like a
reasonable code overhead for that purpose).

--
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/