linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm, oom_adj: avoid meaningless loop to find processes sharing mm

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: <af7ae9c4-d7f1-69af-58fa-ec6949161f5b@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:   Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:52:09 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:     ytk.lee@...sung.com, "mhocko@...nel.org" <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        "mhocko@...e.com" <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom_adj: avoid meaningless loop to find processes
 sharing mm

On 2018/10/08 10:19, Yong-Taek Lee wrote:
> @@ -1056,6 +1056,7 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
>         struct mm_struct *mm = NULL;
>         struct task_struct *task;
>         int err = 0;
> +       int mm_users = 0;
> 
>         task = get_proc_task(file_inode(file));
>         if (!task)
> @@ -1092,7 +1093,8 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
>                 struct task_struct *p = find_lock_task_mm(task);
> 
>                 if (p) {
> -                       if (atomic_read(&p->mm->mm_users) > 1) {
> +                       mm_users = atomic_read(&p->mm->mm_users);
> +                       if ((mm_users > 1) && (mm_users != get_nr_threads(p))) {

How can this work (even before this patch)? When clone(CLONE_VM without CLONE_THREAD/CLONE_SIGHAND)
is requested, copy_process() calls copy_signal() in order to copy sig->oom_score_adj and
sig->oom_score_adj_min before calling copy_mm() in order to increment mm->mm_users, doesn't it?
Then, we will get two different "struct signal_struct" with different oom_score_adj/oom_score_adj_min
but one "struct mm_struct" shared by two thread groups.

>                                 mm = p->mm;
>                                 atomic_inc(&mm->mm_count);
>                         }