linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit

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: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1707101659080.55253@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
cc:     mhocko@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, oleg@...hat.com,
        andrea@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhocko@...e.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap

On Tue, 27 Jun 2017, Tetsuo Handa wrote:

> I wonder why you prefer timeout based approach. Your patch will after all
> set MMF_OOM_SKIP if operations between down_write() and up_write() took
> more than one second. lock_anon_vma_root() from unlink_anon_vmas() from
> free_pgtables() for example calls down_write()/up_write(). unlink_file_vma()
>  from free_pgtables() for another example calls down_write()/up_write().
> This means that it might happen that exit_mmap() takes more than one second
> with mm->mmap_sem held for write, doesn't this?
> 

I certainly have no objection to increasing the timeout period or 
increasing MAX_OOM_REAP_RETRIES to be substantially higher.  All threads 
holding mm->mmap_sem should be oom killed and be able to access memory 
reserves to make forward progress if they fail to reclaim.  If we are 
truly blocked on mm->mmap_sem, waiting longer than one second to declare 
that seems justifiable to prevent the exact situation you describe.