linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/23] mm: introduce bpf_oom_kill

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: <87a514nnty.fsf@linux.dev>
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2025 13:09:45 -0800
From: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,  Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
  Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,  Shakeel Butt
 <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,  Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,  Andrii
 Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,  JP Kobryn <inwardvessel@...il.com>,
  linux-mm@...ck.org,  cgroups@...r.kernel.org,  bpf@...r.kernel.org,
  Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>,  Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
  Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,  Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/23] mm: introduce bpf_oom_kill_process() bpf kfunc

Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> writes:

> On Mon 27-10-25 16:17:10, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>> Introduce bpf_oom_kill_process() bpf kfunc, which is supposed
>> to be used by BPF OOM programs. It allows to kill a process
>> in exactly the same way the OOM killer does: using the OOM reaper,
>> bumping corresponding memcg and global statistics, respecting
>> memory.oom.group etc.
>> 
>> On success, it sets om_control's bpf_memory_freed field to true,
>> enabling the bpf program to bypass the kernel OOM killer.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
>
> LGTM
> Just a minor question
>
>> +	/* paired with put_task_struct() in oom_kill_process() */
>> +	task = tryget_task_struct(task);
>
> Any reason this is not a plain get_task_struct?

Fair enough, get_task_struct() should work too.

Thanks