linux-kernel - Re: [v10 3/6] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer

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.2.10.1710041316120.67374@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2017 13:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, kernel-team@...com,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v10 3/6] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote:

> > > @@ -828,6 +828,12 @@ static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *victim)
> > >  	struct mm_struct *mm;
> > >  	bool can_oom_reap = true;
> > >  
> > > +	if (is_global_init(victim) || (victim->flags & PF_KTHREAD) ||
> > > +	    victim->signal->oom_score_adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN) {
> > > +		put_task_struct(victim);
> > > +		return;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > >  	p = find_lock_task_mm(victim);
> > >  	if (!p) {
> > >  		put_task_struct(victim);
> > 
> > Is this necessary? The callers of this function use oom_badness() to
> > find a victim, and that filters init, kthread, OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN.
> 
> It is. __oom_kill_process() is used to kill all processes belonging
> to the selected memory cgroup, so we should perform these checks
> to avoid killing unkillable processes.
> 

That's only true after the next patch in the series which uses the 
oom_kill_memcg_member() callback to kill processes for oom_group, correct?  
Would it be possible to move this check to that patch so it's more 
obvious?