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: <5614AAC0.60002@suse.cz> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 07:16:48 +0200 From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Kyle Walker <kwalker@...hat.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 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> Subject: Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory? 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). -- 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