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  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]
Date:   Wed,  8 Aug 2018 09:12:59 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <>
To:     Johannes Weiner <>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <>,
        Vladimir Davydov <>,
        Greg Thelen <>,
        Tetsuo Handa <>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <>, <>,
        LKML <>
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?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists