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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 10:33:32 -0700 From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com> To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, yuzhoujian@...ichuxing.com, Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>, Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>, Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>, Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com> Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] signal: extend pidfd_send_signal() to allow expedited process killing On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 10:09 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 8:33 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 06:43:53PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > Add new SS_EXPEDITE flag to be used when sending SIGKILL via > > > pidfd_send_signal() syscall to allow expedited memory reclaim of the > > > victim process. The usage of this flag is currently limited to SIGKILL > > > signal and only to privileged users. > > > > What is the downside of doing expedited memory reclaim? ie why not do it > > every time a process is going to die? > > I think with an implementation that does not use/abuse oom-reaper > thread this could be done for any kill. As I mentioned oom-reaper is a > limited resource which has access to memory reserves and should not be > abused in the way I do in this reference implementation. > While there might be downsides that I don't know of, I'm not sure it's > required to hurry every kill's memory reclaim. I think there are cases > when resource deallocation is critical, for example when we kill to > relieve resource shortage and there are kills when reclaim speed is > not essential. It would be great if we can identify urgent cases > without userspace hints, so I'm open to suggestions that do not > involve additional flags. I was imagining a PI-ish approach where we'd reap in case an RT process was waiting on the death of some other process. I'd still prefer the API I proposed in the other message because it gets the kernel out of the business of deciding what the right signal is. I'm a huge believer in "mechanism, not policy".
Powered by blists - more mailing lists