linux-kernel - Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory?

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: <20150920125642.GA2104@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 20 Sep 2015 14:56:42 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Kyle Walker <kwalker@...hat.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stanislav Kozina <skozina@...hat.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory?

On 09/19, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > +
> > +static void oom_unmap_func(struct work_struct *work)
> > +{
> > +       struct mm_struct *mm = xchg(&oom_unmap_mm, NULL);
> > +
> > +       if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&mm->mm_users))
> > +               return;
> > +
> > +       // If this is not safe we can do use_mm() + unuse_mm()
> > +       down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
>
> I don't think this is safe.
>
> What makes you sure that we might not deadlock on the mmap_sem here?
> For all we know, the process that is going out of memory is in the
> middle of a mmap(), and already holds the mmap_sem for writing. No?

In this case the workqueue thread will block. But it can not block
forever. I mean if it can then the killed process will never exit
(exit_mm does down_read) and release its memory, so we lose anyway.

But let me repeat this patch is obviously not complete/etc,

> So at the very least that needs to be a trylock, I think.

And we want to avoid using workqueues when the caller can do this
directly. And in this case we certainly need trylock. But this needs
some refactoring: we do not want to do this under oom_lock, otoh it
makes sense to do this from mark_oom_victim() if current && killed,
and a lot more details.

The workqueue thread has other reasons for trylock, but probably not
in the initial version of this patch. And perhaps we should use a
dedicated kthread and do not use workqueues at all. And yes, a single
"mm_struct *oom_unmap_mm" is ugly, it should be the list of mm's to
unmap, but then at least we need MMF_MEMDIE.

> And I'm not
> sure zap_page_range() is ok with the mmap_sem only held for reading.
> Normally our rule is that you can *populate* the page tables
> concurrently, but you can't tear the down.

Well, according to madvise_need_mmap_write() MADV_DONTNEED does this
under down_read().

But yes, yes, this is probably not right anyway. Say, VM_LOCKED...
That is why I mentioned that perhaps this should only unmap the
anonymous pages. We can probably add zap_details->for_oom hint.

Another question if it is safe to abuse the foreign mm this way.
Well, zap_page_range_single() does this, so this is probably safe.
But we can do use_mm().

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/