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: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 00:53:03 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] proc, oom: drop bogus task_lock and mm check On 05/31, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Oleg has pointed out that can simplify both oom_adj_write and > oom_score_adj_write even further and drop the sighand lock. The only > purpose of the lock was to protect p->signal from going away but this > will not happen since ea6d290ca34c ("signals: make task_struct->signal > immutable/refcountable"). Sorry for confusion, I meant oom_adj_read() and oom_score_adj_read(). As for oom_adj_write/oom_score_adj_write we can remove it too, but then we need to ensure (say, using cmpxchg) that unpriviliged user can not not decrease signal->oom_score_adj_min if its oom_score_adj_write() races with someone else (say, admin) which tries to increase the same oom_score_adj_min. If you think this is not a problem - I am fine with this change. But please also update oom_adj_read/oom_score_adj_read ;) Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists