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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Yh9+O/xqNLnV1jmA@dhcp22.suse.cz> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 15:24:59 +0100 From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> To: Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com> Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jsavitz@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, dvhart@...radead.org, dave@...olabs.net, andrealmeid@...labora.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/oom: do not oom reap task with an unresolved robust futex Sorry, this has slipped through cracks. On Mon 14-02-22 15:39:31, Nico Pache wrote: [...] > We've recently been discussing the following if statement in __oom_reap_task_mm: > if (vma_is_anonymous(vma) || !(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)) > > Given the comment above it, and some of the upstream discussion the original > RFC, we are struggling to see why this should be a `||` and not an `&&`. If we > only want to reap anon memory and reaping shared memory can be dangerous is this > statement incorrect? > > We have a patch queued up to make this change, but wanted to get your opinion on > why this was originally designed this way in case we are missing something. I do not really see why this would be wrong. Private file backed mappings can contain a reapable memory as well. I do not see how this would solve the futex issue. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists