linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: remove sleep from under oom

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.2.21.1807101411480.29772@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Jul 2018 14:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: remove sleep from under oom_lock

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018, David Rientjes wrote:

> I think it's better, thanks.  However, does it address the question about 
> why __oom_reap_task_mm() needs oom_lock protection?  Perhaps it would be 
> helpful to mention synchronization between reaping triggered from 
> oom_reaper and by exit_mmap().
> 

Actually, can't we remove the need to take oom_lock in exit_mmap() if 
__oom_reap_task_mm() can do a test and set on MMF_UNSTABLE and, if already 
set, bail out immediately?