Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 24-11-14 14:29:00, David Rientjes wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > The problem described above is one of phenomena which is triggered by > > > > a vulnerability which exists since (if I didn't miss something) > > > > Linux 2.0 (18 years ago). However, it is too difficult to backport > > > > patches which fix the vulnerability. > > > > > > What is the vulnerability? > > > > > > > There have historically been issues when oom killed processes fail to > > exit, so this is probably trying to address one of those issues. Exactly. > > Let me clarify. The patch is sold as a security fix. In that context > vulnerability means a behavior which might be abused by a user. I was > merely interested whether there are some known scenarios which would > turn a potential OOM killer deadlock into an exploitable bug. The > changelog was rather unclear about it and rather strong in claims that > any user might trigger OOM deadlock. Well, both of you are in the CC: list of my mail which includes a reproducer program which I sent on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:02:36 +0900. Please prepare two VMs, one with XFS and one without XFS. Compile and run the reproducer program as a local unpriviledged user and see what happens. You will see stalled traces as with cited in this patchset. -- 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>