linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] binder: Don't require the binder lock when killed in binder_thread

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, 4 Apr 2017 09:40:29 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, arve@...roid.com,
        riandrews@...roid.com, Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] binder: Don't require the binder lock when killed in
 binder_thread_read()

On Mon 03-04-17 11:09:32, Doug Anderson wrote:
[...]
> Maybe +Michal Hocko would have some opinions of which OOM Reaper
> patches would be good for picking into linux stable?

I am lacking context here but please note that the OOM reaper patches
alone are not sufficient to make the OOM handling lockup free. There
were quite some changes in the core OOM killer handling to make this
possible. This has been work throughout the last year and it will be
really non-trivial to backport to stable trees.

So the primary question is what are you trying to achieve?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs