linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm,vmscan: fix divide by zero in get_scan

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: <YSzB9q1kVjKce7ly@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 30 Aug 2021 13:33:10 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com,
        stable@...nel.org, Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,vmscan: fix divide by zero in get_scan_count

On Thu 26-08-21 22:01:49, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Changeset f56ce412a59d ("mm: memcontrol: fix occasional OOMs due to
> proportional memory.low reclaim") introduced a divide by zero corner
> case when oomd is being used in combination with cgroup memory.low
> protection.
> 
> When oomd decides to kill a cgroup, it will force the cgroup memory
> to be reclaimed after killing the tasks, by writing to the memory.max
> file for that cgroup, forcing the remaining page cache and reclaimable
> slab to be reclaimed down to zero.
> 
> Previously, on cgroups with some memory.low protection that would result
> in the memory being reclaimed down to the memory.low limit, or likely not
> at all, having the page cache reclaimed asynchronously later.
> 
> With f56ce412a59d the oomd write to memory.max tries to reclaim all the
> way down to zero, which may race with another reclaimer, to the point of
> ending up with the divide by zero below.
> 
> This patch implements the obvious fix.

I must be missing something but how can cgroup_size be ever 0 when it is
max(cgroup_size, protection) and protection != 0?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs