linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: introduce process

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: <CALvZod6deRap_tE_dSPhQnpe7XNgQ6w9hZAEirRRB-bWBK+zBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Jun 2021 12:00:38 -0700
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: introduce process_reap system call

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 11:44 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
[...]
> > > +       /*
> > > +        * If the task is dying and in the process of releasing its memory
> > > +        * then get its mm.
> > > +        */
> > > +       task_lock(task);
> > > +       if (task_will_free_mem(task) && (task->flags & PF_KTHREAD) == 0) {
> >
> > task_will_free_mem() is fine here but I think in parallel we should
> > optimize this function. At the moment it is traversing all the
> > processes on the machine. It is very normal to have tens of thousands
> > of processes on big machines, so it would be really costly when
> > reaping a bunch of processes.
>
> Hmm. But I think we still need to make sure that the mm is not shared
> with another non-dying process. IIUC that's the point of that
> traversal. Am I mistaken?

You are right. I am talking about efficiently finding all processes
which are sharing mm (maybe linked into another list) instead of
traversing all the processes on the system.