linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] oom, oom_reaper: do not enqueue same task twice

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190127114021.GB18811@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Sun, 27 Jan 2019 12:40:21 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz <a.miskiewicz@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>, Jay Kamat <jgkamat@...com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] oom, oom_reaper: do not enqueue same task twice

On Sun 27-01-19 19:56:06, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2019/01/27 17:37, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Thanks for the analysis and the patch. This should work, I believe but
> > I am not really thrilled to overload the meaning of the MMF_UNSTABLE.
> > The flag is meant to signal accessing address space is not stable and it
> > is not aimed to synchronize oom reaper with the oom path.
> > 
> > Can we make use mark_oom_victim directly? I didn't get to think that
> > through right now so I might be missing something but this should
> > prevent repeating queueing as well.
> 
> Yes, TIF_MEMDIE would work. But you are planning to remove TIF_MEMDIE. Also,
> TIF_MEMDIE can't avoid enqueuing many threads sharing mm_struct to the OOM
> reaper. There is no need to enqueue many threads sharing mm_struct because
> the OOM reaper acts on mm_struct rather than task_struct. Thus, enqueuing
> based on per mm_struct flag sounds better, but MMF_OOM_VICTIM cannot be
> set from wake_oom_reaper(victim) because victim's mm might be already inside
> exit_mmap() when wake_oom_reaper(victim) is called after task_unlock(victim).
>
> We could reintroduce MMF_OOM_KILLED in commit 855b018325737f76
> ("oom, oom_reaper: disable oom_reaper for oom_kill_allocating_task")
> if you don't like overloading the meaning of the MMF_UNSTABLE. But since
> MMF_UNSTABLE is available in Linux 4.9+ kernels (which covers all LTS stable
> versions with the OOM reaper support), we can temporarily use MMF_UNSTABLE
> for ease of backporting.

I agree that a per-mm state is more optimal but I would rather fix the
issue in a clear way first and only then think about an optimization on
top. Queueing based on mark_oom_victim (whatever that uses to guarantee
the victim is marked atomically and only once) makes sense from the
conceptual point of view and it makes a lot of sense to start from
there. MMF_UNSTABLE has a completely different purpose. So unless you
see a correctness issue with that then I would rather go that way.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs