linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/10 -v4] Handle oom bypass more gracefully

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]

Date:	Tue, 14 Jun 2016 22:44:20 +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 0/10 -v4] Handle oom bypass more gracefully

On 06/14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> So to me this additional patch looks fine,

forgot to mention, but I think it needs another change in task_will_free_mem(),
it should ignore kthreads (should not fail if we see a kthread which shares
task->mm).

And the comment you added on top of use_mm() looks misleading in any case.

"Do not use copy_from_user from this context" looks simply wrong, why else
do you need use_mm() if you are not going to do get/put_user?

"because the address space might got reclaimed behind the back by the oom_reaper"
doesn't look right too, copy_from_user() can also fail or read ZERO_PAGE() if mm
owner does munmap/madvise.

> but probably I missed something?

Yes...

Oleg.