linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/9] oom reaper v6

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: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1603221507150.22638@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] oom reaper v6

On Tue, 22 Mar 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:

> Hi,
> I am reposting the whole patchset on top of the current Linus tree which should
> already contain big pile of Andrew's mm patches. This should serve an easier
> reviewability and I also hope that this core part of the work can go to 4.6.
> 
> The previous version was posted here [1] Hugh and David have suggested to
> drop [2] because the munlock path currently depends on the page lock and
> it is better if the initial version was conservative and prevent from
> any potential lockups even though it is not clear whether they are real
> - nobody has seen oom_reaper stuck on the page lock AFAICK. Me or Hugh
> will have a look and try to make the munlock path not depend on the page
> lock as a follow up work.
> 
> Apart from that the feedback revealed one bug for a very unusual
> configuration (sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task) and that has been fixed
> by patch 8 and one potential mis interaction with the pm freezer fixed by
> patch 7.
> 
> I think the current code base is already very useful for many situations.
> The rest of the feedback was mostly about potential enhancements of the
> current code which I would really prefer to build on top of the current
> series. I plan to finish my mmap_sem killable for write in the upcoming
> release cycle and hopefully have it merged in the next merge window.
> I believe more extensions will follow.
> 
> This code has been sitting in the mmotm (thus linux-next) for a while.
> Are there any fundamental objections to have this part merged in this
> merge window?
> 

Tetsuo, have you been able to run your previous test cases on top of this 
version and do you have any concerns about it or possible extensions that 
could be made?