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: <20151007120016.GB20428@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 7 Oct 2015 14:00:16 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:	mhocko@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	kwalker@...hat.com, cl@...ux.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	rientjes@...gle.com, 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?

On 10/07, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Anyway. Perhaps it makes sense to abort the for_each_vma() loop if
> > freed_enough_mem() == T. But it is absolutely not clear to me how we
> > should define this freed_enough_mem(), so I think we should do this
> > later.
>
> Maybe
>
>   bool freed_enough_mem(void) { !atomic_read(&oom_victims); }
>
> if we change to call mark_oom_victim() on all threads which should be
> killed as OOM victims.

Well, in this case

	if (atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) == 1)
		break;

makes much more sense. Plus we do not need to change mark_oom_victim().

Lets discuss this later?

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/