linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pagesper zone

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: <201701251933.GBH43798.OMQFFtOJHVFOSL@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2017 19:33:59 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:     mhocko@...nel.org, hch@....de
Cc:     mgorman@...e.de, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        hannes@...xchg.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pagesper zone

Michal Hocko wrote:
> I think we are missing a check for fatal_signal_pending in
> iomap_file_buffered_write. This means that an oom victim can consume the
> full memory reserves. What do you think about the following? I haven't
> tested this but it mimics generic_perform_write so I guess it should
> work.

Looks OK to me. I worried

#define AOP_FLAG_UNINTERRUPTIBLE        0x0001 /* will not do a short write */

which forbids (!?) aborting the loop. But it seems that this flag is
no longer checked (i.e. set but not used). So, everybody should be ready
for short write, although I don't know whether exofs / hfs / hfsplus are
doing appropriate error handling.