linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/10] mm, oom: kill all tasks sharing the mm

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.2.10.1606071514550.18400@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] mm, oom: kill all tasks sharing the mm

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> On 06/06, David Rientjes wrote:
> >
> > > There is a potential race where we kill the oom disabled task which is
> > > highly unlikely but possible. It would happen if __set_oom_adj raced
> > > with select_bad_process and then it is OK to consider the old value or
> > > with fork when it should be acceptable as well.
> > > Let's add a little note to the log so that people would tell us that
> > > this really happens in the real life and it matters.
> > >
> >
> > We cannot kill oom disabled processes at all, little race or otherwise.
> 
> But this change doesn't really make it worse?
> 

Why is the patch asking users to report oom killing of a process that 
raced with setting /proc/pid/oom_score_adj to OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN?  What is 
possibly actionable about it?