[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d11c3aa2-0f14-d882-59c5-6634dc56eed1@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 07:05:54 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
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 2018/07/31 14:09, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 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.
>
Now that Roman's cgroup aware OOM killer patchset will be dropped from linux-next.git ,
linux-next.git will get the sleeping point removed. Please send this patch to linux-next.git .
Powered by blists - more mailing lists