linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memcg, oom: be careful about races when warning about no reclaimable task

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: <20180808071301.12478-1-mhocko@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed,  8 Aug 2018 09:12:59 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg, oom: be careful about races when warning about no reclaimable task

On Wed 08-08-18 08:44:14, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 07-08-18 16:54:25, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
> > What the global OOM killer does in that situation is dump the header
> > anyway:
> > 
> > 	/* Found nothing?!?! Either we hang forever, or we panic. */
> > 	if (!oc->chosen && !is_sysrq_oom(oc) && !is_memcg_oom(oc)) {
> > 		dump_header(oc, NULL);
> > 		panic("Out of memory and no killable processes...\n");
> > 	}
> > 
> > I think that would make sense here as well - without the panic,
> > obviously, but we can add our own pr_err() line following the header.
> > 
> > That gives us the exact memory situation of the cgroup and who is
> > trying to allocate and from what context, but in a format that is
> > known to users without claiming right away that it's a kernel issue.
> 
> I was considering doing that initially but then decided that warning is
> less noisy and still a good "let us know" trigger. It doesn't give us
> the whole picture which is obviously a downside but we would at least
> know that something is going south one have the trace to who that might
> be should this be a bug rather than a misconfiguration.
> 
> But I do not mind doing dump_header as well. Care to send a patch?

OK, so I found few spare cycles and here is what I came up with. The
first patch fixes the spurious warning and I have separated the check
and added a comment as you asked. The second patch replaces warning with
oom report.

Does that look better?