linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] mm/oom_kill.c: futex: Close a race between do_exit and the oom

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0d0fb94a-ff66-ac31-e126-0eaf4dca0d6a@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Mar 2022 21:09:46 -0600
From:   Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Joel Savitz <jsavitz@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
        Christoph von Recklinghausen <crecklin@...hat.com>,
        Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
        "Herton R . Krzesinski" <herton@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andre Almeida <andrealmeid@...labora.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] mm/oom_kill.c: futex: Close a race between do_exit and
 the oom_reaper



On 3/21/22 20:57, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022, Nico Pache wrote:
> 
>> We could proceed with the V3 approach; however if we are able to find a complete
>> solution that keeps both functionalities (Concurrent OOM Reaping & Robust Futex)
>> working, I dont see why we wouldnt go for it.
> 
> Because semantically killing the process is, imo, the wrong thing to do. My
> performance argument before however is bogus as the overhead of robust futexes
> is pretty negligible within the lifetime of a lock. That said, the users still
> have good(?) reasons for not wanting the lock holder to crash on them.

>From my understanding, the whole point of the robust futex is to allow forward
progress in an application in which the lock holder CAN crash/exit/oom. So
semantically nothing is wrong with killing the futex holder... the whole point
of the robustness is to handle these cases. We just have a case were the oom
killer is racing with said handling of the futex, invalidating the memory before
the exit path (handle_futex_death) can awake one of the other waiters.

-- Nico
> 
> Thanks,
> Davidlohr
>