linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/oom_kill: allow oom kill allocating task for non-global case

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: <20210610122323.6geriip66jjmdstj@ava.usersys.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Jun 2021 13:23:23 +0100
From:   Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/oom_kill: allow oom kill allocating task for
 non-global case

On Thu 2021-06-10 12:00 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> If that was the case then the allocating (charging) task would not hit
> the oom path at all

Yes, you are correct. I was looking at another version of the source code.
I does not make sense to consider the OOM code path at all, in this
context. The allocating task is selected/or marked as an "OOM vicitm" after
SIGKILL is sent (see __oom_kill_process()).

> What do you mean by allocating task being unkillable?

Please disregard this statement, as per the above.
Anyhow, I think we should exclude tasks that have MMF_OOM_SKIP applied in
dump_tasks() as it could be misleading.

-- 
Aaron Tomlin