| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1465473137-22531-5-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:52:11 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: [PATCH 04/10] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
oom_score_adj is shared for the thread groups (via struct signal) but
this is not sufficient to cover processes sharing mm (CLONE_VM without
CLONE_SIGHAND) and so we can easily end up in a situation when some
processes update their oom_score_adj and confuse the oom killer. In the
worst case some of those processes might hide from the oom killer altogether
via OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN while others are eligible. OOM killer would then
pick up those eligible but won't be allowed to kill others sharing the
same mm so the mm wouldn't release the mm and so the memory.
It would be ideal to have the oom_score_adj per mm_struct because that
is the natural entity OOM killer considers. But this will not work
because some programs are doing
vfork()
set_oom_adj()
exec()
We can achieve the same though. oom_score_adj write handler can set the
oom_score_adj for all processes sharing the same mm if the task is not
in the middle of vfork. As a result all the processes will share the
same oom_score_adj. The current implementation is rather pessimistic
and checks all the existing processes by default if there is more than
1 holder of the mm but we do not have any reliable way to check for
external users yet.
Changes since v2
- skip over same thread group
- skip over kernel threads and global init
Changes since v1
- note that we are changing oom_score_adj outside of the thread group
to the log
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
---
fs/proc/base.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
include/linux/mm.h | 2 ++
mm/oom_kill.c | 2 +-
3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
index a6a8fbdd5a1b..c986e92680e1 100644
--- a/fs/proc/base.c
+++ b/fs/proc/base.c
@@ -1040,6 +1040,7 @@ static ssize_t oom_adj_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t count,
static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
{
static DEFINE_MUTEX(oom_adj_mutex);
+ struct mm_struct *mm = NULL;
struct task_struct *task;
int err = 0;
@@ -1069,10 +1070,55 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
}
}
+ /*
+ * Make sure we will check other processes sharing the mm if this is
+ * not vfrok which wants its own oom_score_adj.
+ * pin the mm so it doesn't go away and get reused after task_unlock
+ */
+ if (!task->vfork_done) {
+ struct task_struct *p = find_lock_task_mm(task);
+
+ if (p) {
+ if (atomic_read(&p->mm->mm_users) > 1) {
+ mm = p->mm;
+ atomic_inc(&mm->mm_count);
+ }
+ task_unlock(p);
+ }
+ }
+
task->signal->oom_score_adj = oom_adj;
if (!legacy && has_capability_noaudit(current, CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
task->signal->oom_score_adj_min = (short)oom_adj;
trace_oom_score_adj_update(task);
+
+ if (mm) {
+ struct task_struct *p;
+
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ for_each_process(p) {
+ if (same_thread_group(task, p))
+ continue;
+
+ /* do not touch kernel threads or the global init */
+ if (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD || is_global_init(p))
+ continue;
+
+ task_lock(p);
+ if (!p->vfork_done && process_shares_mm(p, mm)) {
+ pr_info("updating oom_score_adj for %d (%s) from %d to %d because it shares mm with %d (%s). Report if this is unexpected.\n",
+ task_pid_nr(p), p->comm,
+ p->signal->oom_score_adj, oom_adj,
+ task_pid_nr(task), task->comm);
+ p->signal->oom_score_adj = oom_adj;
+ if (!legacy && has_capability_noaudit(current, CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
+ p->signal->oom_score_adj_min = (short)oom_adj;
+ }
+ task_unlock(p);
+ }
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ mmdrop(mm);
+ }
err_unlock:
mutex_unlock(&oom_adj_mutex);
put_task_struct(task);
diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
index 4b604ab49399..07a1fb98805f 100644
--- a/include/linux/mm.h
+++ b/include/linux/mm.h
@@ -2280,6 +2280,8 @@ static inline int in_gate_area(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr)
}
#endif /* __HAVE_ARCH_GATE_AREA */
+extern bool process_shares_mm(struct task_struct *p, struct mm_struct *mm);
+
#ifdef CONFIG_SYSCTL
extern int sysctl_drop_caches;
int drop_caches_sysctl_handler(struct ctl_table *, int,
diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index d4a929d79470..d8220c5603a5 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ bool oom_killer_disabled __read_mostly;
* task's threads: if one of those is using this mm then this task was also
* using it.
*/
-static bool process_shares_mm(struct task_struct *p, struct mm_struct *mm)
+bool process_shares_mm(struct task_struct *p, struct mm_struct *mm)
{
struct task_struct *t;
--
2.8.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists