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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <201510071943.DCJ01080.JOFOFFOtLSMQHV@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 19:43:08 +0900 From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp> To: vbabka@...e.cz Cc: mhocko@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, rientjes@...gle.com, oleg@...hat.com, kwalker@...hat.com, cl@...ux.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, vdavydov@...allels.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, skozina@...hat.com Subject: Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 5.10.2015 16:44, Michal Hocko wrote: > > So I can see basically only few ways out of this deadlock situation. > > Either we face the reality and allow small allocations (withtout > > __GFP_NOFAIL) to fail after all attempts to reclaim memory have failed > > (so after even OOM killer hasn't made any progress). > > Note that small allocations already *can* fail if they are done in the context > of a task selected as OOM victim (i.e. TIF_MEMDIE). And yeah I've seen a case > when they failed in a code that "handled" the allocation failure with a > BUG_ON(!page). > Did You hit a race described below? http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201508272249.HDH81838.FtQOLMFFOVSJOH@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp Where was the BUG_ON(!page) ? Maybe it is a candidate for adding __GFP_NOFAIL. -- 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