linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8] oom_kill.c: futex: Don't OOM reap the VMA containing the robust_list

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: <ddf1755e-fe69-b60e-ee07-e78d663b11b2@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Apr 2022 04:52:33 -0400
From:   Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.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>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Joel Savitz <jsavitz@...hat.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] oom_kill.c: futex: Don't OOM reap the VMA containing
 the robust_list_head



On 4/8/22 04:37, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08 2022 at 10:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 11:28:09PM -0400, Nico Pache wrote:
>>> Theoretically a failure can still occur if there are locks mapped as
>>> PRIVATE|ANON; however, the robust futexes are a best-effort approach.
>>> This patch only strengthens that best-effort.
>>>
>>> The following case can still fail:
>>> robust head (skipped) -> private lock (reaped) -> shared lock
>>> (skipped)
>>
>> This is still all sorts of confused.. it's a list head, the entries can
>> be in any random other VMA. You must not remove *any* user memory before
>> doing the robust thing. Not removing the VMA that contains the head is
>> pointless in the extreme.
>>
>> Did you not read the previous discussion?
> 
> Aside of that we all agreed that giving a oom-killed task time to
> cleanup itself instead of brute force cleaning it up immediately, which
> is the real problem here. Can we fix that first before adding broken
> heuristics?
We've tried multiple approaches to reproduce the case you are talking about with
no success...

Why make a change for something that we cant reproduce when we are sure this
works for all the cases we've attempted.

I also dont see how this a broken heuristic... If anything adding a delay is
broken. How do we assure the delay is long enough for the exit to clean up the
futexes? In a heavily contended CPU with high memory pressure the delay may also
lead to other processes unnecessarily OOMing.

Cheers,
-- Nico

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx
> 
>