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: <cb2d635c-c14d-c2cc-868a-d4c447364f0d@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date:   Fri, 24 Aug 2018 06:00:48 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.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 2018/08/24 5:06, David Rientjes wrote:
> For those of us who are tracking CVE-2016-10723 which has peristently been 
> labeled as "disputed" and with no clear indication of what patches address 
> it, I am assuming that commit 9bfe5ded054b ("mm, oom: remove sleep from 
> under oom_lock") and this patch are the intended mitigations?
> 
> A list of SHA1s for merged fixed and links to proposed patches to address 
> this issue would be appreciated.
> 

Commit 9bfe5ded054b ("mm, oom: remove sleep from under oom_lock") is a
mitigation for CVE-2016-10723.

"[PATCH] mm,page_alloc: PF_WQ_WORKER threads must sleep at
should_reclaim_retry()." is independent from CVE-2016-10723.

We haven't made sure that the OOM reaper / exit_mmap() will get enough CPU
resources. For example, under a cluster of concurrently allocating realtime
scheduling priority threads, the OOM reaper takes about 1800 milliseconds
whereas direct OOM reaping takes only a few milliseconds.

Regards.