netdev - Re: [netfilter-core] kernel panic: Out of memory and no killable processes... (2)

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: <20180130095134.GU21609@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:51:34 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        davem@...emloft.net, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        coreteam@...filter.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        aarcange@...hat.com, yang.s@...baba-inc.com,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mingo@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, guro@...com,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [netfilter-core] kernel panic: Out of memory and no killable
 processes... (2)

On Tue 30-01-18 09:11:27, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon 29-01-18 23:35:22, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > > Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > I hate what I'm saying, but I guess we need some tunable here.
> > > > Not sure what exactly.
> > > 
> > > Would memcg help?
> > 
> > That really depends. I would have to check whether vmalloc path obeys
> > __GFP_ACCOUNT (I suspect it does except for page tables allocations but
> > that shouldn't be a big deal). But then the other potential problem is
> > the life time of the xt_table_info (or other potentially large) data
> > structures. Are they bound to any process life time.
> 
> No.
> 
> > Because if they are
> > not then the OOM killer will not help. The OOM panic earlier in this
> > thread suggests it doesn't because the test case managed to eat all the
> > available memory and killed all the eligible tasks which didn't help.
> 
> Yes, which is why we do not want any OOM killer invocation in first
> place...

The problem is that as soon as you eat that memory and ask for more
until you fail with ENOMEM then the OOM is simply unavoidable.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs