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:	Wed, 23 Sep 2015 08:03:16 -0400
From:	Kyle Walker <kwalker@...hat.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
	mhocko@...nel.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, vdavydov@...allels.com,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Stanislav Kozina <skozina@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:32 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> I struggle to understand how the approach of randomly continuing to kill
> more and more processes in the hope that it slows down usage of memory
> reserves or that we get lucky is better.

Thank you to one and all for the feedback.

I agree, in lieu of treating TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks as unkillable,
and omitting them from the oom selection process, continuing the
carnage is likely to result in more unpredictable results. At this
time, I believe Oleg's solution of zapping the process memory use
while it sleeps with the fatal signal enroute is ideal.

Kyle Walker
--
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/