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  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]
Date:   Tue, 5 Oct 2021 16:55:13 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <>
To:     Vasily Averin <>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <>,
        Vladimir Davydov <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Tetsuo Handa <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH memcg v3] memcg: prohibit unconditional exceeding the
 limit of dying tasks

On Tue 05-10-21 16:52:31, Vasily Averin wrote:
> v3: no functional changes, just improved patch description

You haven't addressed my review feedback regarding the oom invocation.
Let me paste it here again:
: > @@ -1607,7 +1607,7 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
: >        * A few threads which were not waiting at mutex_lock_killable() can
: >        * fail to bail out. Therefore, check again after holding oom_lock.
: >        */
: > -     ret = should_force_charge() || out_of_memory(&oc);
: > +     ret = task_is_dying() || out_of_memory(&oc);
: task_is_dying check will prevent the oom killer for dying tasks. There
: is an additional bail out at out_of_memory layer. These checks are now
: leading to a completely different behavior. Currently we simply use
: "unlimited" reserves and therefore we do not have to kill any task. Now
: the charge fails without using all reclaim measures. So I believe we
: should drop those checks for memcg oom paths. I have to think about this
: some more because I might be missing some other side effects.
Michal Hocko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists