linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm,page_alloc: PF_WQ_WORKER threads must sleep at should_reclaim

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: <20180731050928.GA4557@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 31 Jul 2018 07:09:28 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,page_alloc: PF_WQ_WORKER threads must sleep at
 should_reclaim_retry().

On Tue 31-07-18 06:01:48, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/07/31 4:10, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Since should_reclaim_retry() should be a natural reschedule point,
> > let's do the short sleep for PF_WQ_WORKER threads unconditionally in
> > order to guarantee that other pending work items are started. This will
> > workaround this problem and it is less fragile than hunting down when
> > the sleep is missed. E.g. we used to have a sleeping point in the oom
> > path but this has been removed recently because it caused other issues.
> > Having a single sleeping point is more robust.
> 
> linux.git has not removed the sleeping point in the OOM path yet. Since removing the
> sleeping point in the OOM path can mitigate CVE-2016-10723, please do so immediately.

is this an {Acked,Reviewed,Tested}-by?

I will send the patch to Andrew if the patch is ok. 

> (And that change will conflict with Roman's cgroup aware OOM killer patchset. But it
> should be easy to rebase.)

That is still a WIP so I would lose sleep over it.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs