linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] oom: consider multi-threaded tasks in task_will_free

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: <20160413134520.GK14351@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:45:20 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, oleg@...hat.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom: consider multi-threaded tasks in task_will_free_mem

On Wed 13-04-16 22:27:52, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > The whole thread group is going down does not mean we make sure that
> > > we will send SIGKILL to other thread groups sharing the same memory which
> > > is possibly holding mmap_sem for write, does it?
> > 
> > And the patch description doesn't say anything about processes sharing
> > mm. This is supposed to be a minor fix of an obviously suboptimal
> > behavior of task_will_free_mem. Can we stick to the proposed patch,
> > please?
> > 
> > If we really do care about processes sharing mm _that_much_ then it
> > should be handled in the separate patch.
> 
> I do care.

then feel free to post a patch. I believe such a change should be
handled in a separate patch. I have intentionally layed out the code
in a way to allow further checks easily.

Separate processes sharing the same mm have lower priority for me
because I do not know of any recent userspace which would use this
strange threading model or do you have anything specific in mind which
would make it more real-life? We will get to this eventually.

> The OOM reaper cannot work unless SIGKILL is sent to a thread
> which is holding mmap_sem for write. Thus, sending SIGKILL to all thread
> groups sharing the mm is needed by your down_write_killable(&mm->mmap_sem)
> changes. Like I wrote at
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201604092300.BDI39040.FFSQLJOMHOOVtF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp ,
> we cannot fix that problem unless you accept the slowpath.
> 
> I don't like you don't explain your approach for handling the slowpath.
> If you explain your approach for handling the slowpath and I agree on
> your approach, I will also agree on the proposed patches.

I would much appreciate if you _stopped_ conflating different things
together. This is just generating a lot of fuzz and slows the overal
progress.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs