linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 07/17] mm: introduce BPF OOM struct ops

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: <aXnwzpeaggySKRzd@tiehlicka>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 12:19:42 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
	JP Kobryn <inwardvessel@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 07/17] mm: introduce BPF OOM struct ops

Once additional point I forgot to mention previously

On Mon 26-01-26 18:44:10, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> @@ -1168,6 +1180,13 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
>  		return true;
>  	}
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Let bpf handle the OOM first. If it was able to free up some memory,
> +	 * bail out. Otherwise fall back to the kernel OOM killer.
> +	 */
> +	if (bpf_handle_oom(oc))
> +		return true;
> +
>  	select_bad_process(oc);
>  	/* Found nothing?!?! */
>  	if (!oc->chosen) {

Should this check for is_sysrq_oom and always use the in kernel OOM
handling for Sysrq triggered ooms as a failsafe measure?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs