linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] Refactor part of the oom report in dump

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]

Date:   Mon, 11 Jun 2018 09:07:20 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     禹舟键 <ufo19890607@...il.com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
        penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp, guro@...com,
        yang.s@...baba-inc.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Wind Yu <yuzhoujian@...ichuxing.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] Refactor part of the oom report in dump_header

On Sun 10-06-18 08:12:16, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 05:53:14PM +0800, 禹舟键 wrote:
> > Hi Mike
> > > My question was why do you call to alloc_constrained in the dump_header()
> > > function rather than pass the constraint that was detected a bit earlier to
> > > that function?
> > 
> > dump_header will be called by three functions: oom_kill_process,
> > check_panic_on_oom, out_of_memory.
> > We can get the constraint from the last two
> > functions(check_panic_on_oom, out_of_memory), but I need to
> > pass a new parameter(constraint) for oom_kill_process.
> 
> Another option is to add the constraint to the oom_control structure.

Which would make more sense because oom_control should contain the full
OOM context.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs