On 06/29, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > > +void mark_oom_victim(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > {
> > > WARN_ON(oom_killer_disabled);
> > > /* OOM killer might race with memcg OOM */
> > > if (test_and_set_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_MEMDIE))
> > > return;
> > > +
> > > atomic_inc(&tsk->signal->oom_victims);
> > > +
> > > + /* oom_mm is bound to the signal struct life time */
> > > + if (!tsk->signal->oom_mm) {
> > > + atomic_inc(&mm->mm_count);
> > > + tsk->signal->oom_mm = mm;
> >
> > Looks racy, but it is not because we rely on oom_lock? Perhaps a comment
> > makes sense.
>
> mark_oom_victim will be called only for the current or under the
> task_lock so it should be stable. Except for...
I meant that the code looks racy because 2 threads can see ->oom_mm == NULL
at the same time and in this case we have the extra atomic_inc(mm_count).
But I guess oom_lock saves us, so the code is correct but not clear.
> > > @@ -838,8 +826,8 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct oom_control *oc, struct task_struct *p,
> > > * If the task is already exiting, don't alarm the sysadmin or kill
> > > * its children or threads, just set TIF_MEMDIE so it can die quickly
> > > */
> > > - if (task_will_free_mem(p)) {
> > > - mark_oom_victim(p);
> > > + if (mm && task_will_free_mem(p)) {
> > > + mark_oom_victim(p, mm);
>
> This one. I didn't bother to cover it for the example patch but I have a
> plan to address that. There are two possible ways. One is to pin
> mm_count in oom_badness() so that we have a guarantee that it will not
I thought about this too. And I think that select_bad_process() should even
return mm_struct or at least a task_lock'ed task for the start.
> > And this looks really racy at first glance. Suppose that this memory hog execs
> > (this changes its ->mm) and then exits so that task_will_free_mem() == T, in
> > this case "mm" has nothing to do with tsk->mm and it can be already freed.
>
> Hmm, I didn't think about exec case. And I guess we have never cared
> about that race. We just select a task and then kill it.
And I guess we want to fix this too, although this is not that important,
but this looks like a minor security problem.
And this is another indication that almost everything oom-kill.c does with
task_struct is wrong ;) Ideally It should only use task_struct to send the
SIGKILL, and now that we kill all users of victim->mm we can hopefully do
this later.
Btw, do we still need this list_for_each_entry(child, &t->children, sibling)
loop in oom_kill_process() ?
> I would be more worried about the use
> after free.
Yes, yes, this is what I meant.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>