linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: fix oom invocation issues

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170518150721.GC13940@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 18 May 2017 17:07:21 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:     guro@...com, hannes@...xchg.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
        kernel-team@...com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: fix oom invocation issues

On Thu 18-05-17 23:57:23, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 18-05-17 22:57:10, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > It is racy and it basically doesn't have any allocation context so we
> > > > might kill a task from a different domain. So can we do this instead?
> > > > There is a slight risk that somebody might have returned VM_FAULT_OOM
> > > > without doing an allocation but from my quick look nobody does that
> > > > currently.
> > > 
> > > I can't tell whether it is safe to remove out_of_memory() from
> > > pagefault_out_of_memory().  There are VM_FAULT_OOM users in fs/
> > > directory. What happens if pagefault_out_of_memory() was called as a
> > > result of e.g. GFP_NOFS allocation failure?
> > 
> > Then we would bypass GFP_NOFS oom protection and could trigger a
> > premature OOM killer invocation.
> 
> Excuse me, but I couldn't understand your answer.
> 
> We have __GFP_FS check in out_of_memory(). If we remove out_of_memory() from
> pagefault_out_of_memory(), pagefault_out_of_memory() called as a result of
> a !__GFP_FS allocation failure won't be able to call oom_kill_process().
> Unless somebody else calls oom_kill_process() via a __GFP_FS allocation
> request, a thread which triggered a page fault event will spin forever.

which is basically the same as looping inside the allocator. Except that
we unwind the full falt path and drop all the locks which is an
advantage.

> > > Is it guaranteed that all memory allocations that might occur from
> > > page fault event (or any action that might return VM_FAULT_OOM)
> > > are allowed to call oom_kill_process() from out_of_memory() before
> > > reaching pagefault_out_of_memory() ?
> > 
> > The same applies here.
> 
> So, my question is, can pagefault_out_of_memory() be called as a result of
> an allocation request (or action) which cannot call oom_kill_process() ?
> Please answer with "yes" or "no".

I haven't checked all of them but considering that we do not fail small
allocations I would consider that unlikely.

> > > Anyway, I want
> > > 
> > > 	/* Avoid allocations with no watermarks from looping endlessly */
> > > -	if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE))
> > > +	if (alloc_flags == ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS && test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE))
> > > 		goto nopage;
> > > 
> > > so that we won't see similar backtraces and memory information from both
> > > out_of_memory() and warn_alloc().
> > 
> > I do not think this is an improvement and it is unrelated to the
> > discussion here.
> 
> If we allow current thread to allocate memory when current thread was
> chosen as an OOM victim by giving current thread a chance to do
> ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS allocation request, all memory allocation requests
> that might occur from page fault event will likely succeed and thus
> current thread will not call pagefault_out_of_memory(). This will
> prevent current thread from selecting next OOM victim by calling
> out_of_memory() from pagefault_out_of_memory().

yes, I have realized that later and responded already.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs