linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm,oom: don't abort on exiting processes when selecting a victim.

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: <201602180029.HHG73447.QSFOHJOtLVOFFM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:	Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:29:35 +0900
From:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:	mhocko@...nel.org
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rientjes@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
	oleg@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, hughd@...gle.com,
	andrea@...nel.org, riel@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm,oom: don't abort on exiting processes when selecting a victim.

Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > Please see http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201602151958.HCJ48972.FFOFOLMHSQVJtO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp .
> > > 
> > > I have missed this one. Reading...
> > > 
> > > Hmm, so you are not referring to OOM killed task but naturally exiting
> > > thread which is racing with the OOM killer. I guess you have a point
> > > there! Could you update the changelog with the above example and repost
> > > please?
> > > 
> > Yes and I resent that patch as v2.
> > 
> > I think that the same problem exists for any task_will_free_mem()-based
> > optimizations. Can we eliminate them because these optimized paths are not
> > handled by the OOM reaper which means that we have no means other than
> > "[PATCH 5/6] mm,oom: Re-enable OOM killer using timers." ?
> 
> Well, only oom_kill_process usage of task_will_free_mem might be a
> problem because out_of_memory operates on the current task so it must be
> in the allocation path and access to memory reserves should help it to
> continue.

Allowing access to memory reserves by task_will_free_mem(current) in
out_of_memory() will help current to continue, but that does not guarantee
that current will not be later blocked at down_read(&current->mm->mmap_sem).
It is possible that one of threads sharing current thread's memory is calling
out_of_memory() from mmap() and is waiting for current to set
current->mm = NULL.

> Wrt. oom_kill_process this will be more tricky. I guess we want to
> teach oom_reaper to operate on such a task which would be a more robust
> solution than removing the check altogether.
> 

Thus, I think there is no difference between task_will_free_mem(current)
case and task_will_free_mem(p) case. We want to teach the OOM reaper to
operate whenever TIF_MEMDIE is set. But this means that we want
mm_is_reapable() check because there might be !SIGKILL && !PF_EXITING
threads when we run these optimized paths. We will need to use timer
if mm_is_reapable() == false after all.

Why don't you accept timer based workaround now, even if you have a plan
to update the OOM reaper for handling these optimized paths?