On Tue 31-07-18 19:47:45, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/07/31 14:09, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 31-07-18 06:01:48, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> On 2018/07/31 4:10, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> Since should_reclaim_retry() should be a natural reschedule point,
> >>> let's do the short sleep for PF_WQ_WORKER threads unconditionally in
> >>> order to guarantee that other pending work items are started. This will
> >>> workaround this problem and it is less fragile than hunting down when
> >>> the sleep is missed. E.g. we used to have a sleeping point in the oom
> >>> path but this has been removed recently because it caused other issues.
> >>> Having a single sleeping point is more robust.
> >>
> >> linux.git has not removed the sleeping point in the OOM path yet. Since removing the
> >> sleeping point in the OOM path can mitigate CVE-2016-10723, please do so immediately.
> >
> > is this an {Acked,Reviewed,Tested}-by?
>
> I'm saying that "we used to have a sleeping point in the oom path but this has been
> removed recently" is not true. You need to send that patch to linux.git first if you
> want to refer that patch in this patch.
That patch is already sitting in mmotm tree and this one will go on top.
I do not really see any reason to rush it to Linus tree. A dubious CVE
doesn't really raise the priority if you ask me.
On the other hand, having a confirmation, either of the above tags would
help to raise the credibility of the change.
> > I will send the patch to Andrew if the patch is ok.
>
> Andrew, can we send the "we used to have a sleeping point in the oom path but this has
> been removed recently" patch to linux.git ?
This can really wait for the next merge window IMHO.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
