linux-kernel - Re: WARNING in try

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: <9c03213f-c099-378b-e9fd-ed6f2a2afdc3@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date:   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 06:50:09 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     syzbot <syzbot+bab151e82a4e973fa325@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, dvyukov@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, vdavydov.dev@...il.com
Subject: Re: WARNING in try_charge

On 2018/08/07 5:55, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 07-08-18 05:46:04, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2018/08/07 5:34, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 07-08-18 05:26:23, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>>> On 2018/08/07 2:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>> So the oom victim indeed passed the above force path after the oom
>>>>> invocation. But later on hit the page fault path and that behaved
>>>>> differently and for some reason the force path hasn't triggered. I am
>>>>> wondering how could we hit the page fault path in the first place. The
>>>>> task is already killed! So what the hell is going on here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I must be missing something obvious here.
>>>>>
>>>> YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY MISSING MY MAIL!
>>>>
>>>> I already said this is "mm, oom: task_will_free_mem(current) should ignore MMF_OOM_SKIP for once."
>>>> problem which you are refusing at https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg133774.html .
>>>> And you again ignored my mail. Very sad...
>>>
>>> Your suggestion simply didn't make much sense. There is nothing like
>>> first check is different from the rest.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think your patch is appropriate. It avoids hitting WARN(1) but does not avoid
>> unnecessary killing of OOM victims.
>>
>> If you look at https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=CrashLog&x=15a1c770400000 , you will
>> notice that both 23766 and 23767 are killed due to task_will_free_mem(current) == false.
>> This is "unnecessary killing of additional processes".
> 
> Have you noticed the mere detail that the memcg has to kill any task
> attempting the charge because the hard limit is 0? There is simply no
> other way around. You cannot charge. There is no unnecessary killing.
> Full stop. We do allow temporary breach of the hard limit just to let
> the task die and uncharge on the way out.
> 

select_bad_process() is called just because
task_will_free_mem("already killed current thread which has not completed __mmput()") == false
is a bug. I'm saying that the OOM killer should not give up as soon as MMF_OOM_SKIP is set.

 static bool oom_has_pending_victims(struct oom_control *oc)
 {
 	struct task_struct *p, *tmp;
 	bool ret = false;
 	bool gaveup = false;
 
 	if (is_sysrq_oom(oc))
 		return false;
 	/*
 	 * Wait for pending victims until __mmput() completes or stalled
 	 * too long.
 	 */
 	list_for_each_entry_safe(p, tmp, &oom_victim_list, oom_victim_list) {
 		struct mm_struct *mm = p->signal->oom_mm;
 
 		if (oom_unkillable_task(p, oc->memcg, oc->nodemask))
 			continue;
 		ret = true;
+		/*
+		 * Since memcg OOM allows forced charge, we can safely wait
+		 * until __mmput() completes.
+		 */
+		if (is_memcg_oom(oc))
+			return true;
 #ifdef CONFIG_MMU
 		/*
 		 * Since the OOM reaper exists, we can safely wait until
 		 * MMF_OOM_SKIP is set.
 		 */
 		if (!test_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags)) {
 			if (!oom_reap_target) {
 				get_task_struct(p);
 				oom_reap_target = p;
 				trace_wake_reaper(p->pid);
 				wake_up(&oom_reaper_wait);
 			}
 #endif
 			continue;
 		}
 #endif
 		/* We can wait as long as OOM score is decreasing over time. */
 		if (!victim_mm_stalling(p, mm))
 			continue;
 		gaveup = true;
 		list_del(&p->oom_victim_list);
 		/* Drop a reference taken by mark_oom_victim(). */
 		put_task_struct(p);
 	}
 	if (gaveup)
 		debug_show_all_locks();
 
 	return ret;
 }