linux-kernel - Re: [v3 5/6] mm, oom: don't mark all oom victims tasks with TIF

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: <20170630082551.GB22917@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:25:51 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        kernel-team@...com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v3 5/6] mm, oom: don't mark all oom victims tasks with
 TIF_MEMDIE

On Thu 29-06-17 14:45:13, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:53:57AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 21-06-17 22:19:15, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > We want to limit the number of tasks which are having an access
> > > to the memory reserves. To ensure the progress it's enough
> > > to have one such process at the time.
> > > 
> > > If we need to kill the whole cgroup, let's give an access to the
> > > memory reserves only to the first process in the list, which is
> > > (usually) the biggest process.
> > > This will give us good chances that all other processes will be able
> > > to quit without an access to the memory reserves.
> > 
> > I don't like this to be honest. Is there any reason to go the reduced
> > memory reserves access to oom victims I was suggesting earlier [1]?
> > 
> > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1472723464-22866-2-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org
> 
> I've nothing against your approach. What's the state of this patchset?
> Do you plan to bring it upstream?

Just the specific patch I have linked should be sufficient for what you
need here. The patchset had some issues which I didn't have time to fix
and as such the need for the above patch was not a high priority as
well.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs