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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 12:06:53 +0100 From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mgorman@...e.de, rientjes@...gle.com, riel@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com, oleg@...hat.com, andrea@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -v2] mm, oom: introduce oom reaper On Tue 08-12-15 07:19:42, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > Yes you are right! The reference count should be incremented before > > publishing the new mm_to_reap. I thought that an elevated ref. count by > > the caller would be enough but this was clearly wrong. Does the update > > below looks better? > > I think that moving mmdrop() from oom_kill_process() to > oom_reap_vmas() xor wake_oom_reaper() makes the patch simpler. It surely is less lines of code but I am not sure it is simpler. I do not think we should drop the reference in a different path than it is taken. Maybe we will grow more users of wake_oom_reaper in the future and this is quite subtle behavior. > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > + if (can_oom_reap) > + wake_oom_reaper(mm); /* will call mmdrop() */ > + else > + mmdrop(mm); > - mmdrop(mm); > put_task_struct(victim); > } Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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