linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm, oom: OOM sysrq should always kill a 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAG48ez0-GO72FRO3deOKoB7Ubjk_7x4=j-eoD-38cV-HTEyG-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Jan 2022 11:22:18 +0100
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm, oom: OOM sysrq should always kill a process

On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 11:21 AM Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> The OOM kill sysrq (alt+sysrq+F) should allow the user to kill the
> process with the highest OOM badness with a single execution.
>
> However, at the moment, the OOM kill can bail out if an OOM notifier
> (e.g. the i915 one) says that it reclaimed a tiny amount of memory
> from somewhere. That's probably not what the user wants.
>
> As documented in struct oom_control, order == -1 means the oom kill is
> required by sysrq. So check for that, and if it's true, don't bail out
> no matter what the OOM notifiers say.

Er, sorry, I just noticed after sending this that the commit message
doesn't make sense anymore... I'll send a new version in a sec.