linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK

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]

Date:	Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
cc:	Kyle Walker <kwalker@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	hannes@...xchg.org, vdavydov@...allels.com, oleg@...hat.com,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:

> Nack to this. TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE should be time constrained/bounded
> state. Using it as an oom victim criteria makes the victim selection
> less deterministic which is undesirable. As much as I am aware of
> potential issues with the current implementation, making the behavior
> more random doesn't really help.
> 

Agreed, we can't avoid killing a process simply because it is in D state, 
this isn't an indication that the process will not be able to exit and in 
the worst case could panic the system if all other processes cannot be oom 
killed.
--
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/