Subject: + oom_kill-has_intersects_mems_allowed-needs-rcu_read_lock.patch added to -mm tree
To: oleg@xxxxxxxxxx,dserrg@xxxxxxxxx,ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx,fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx,mhocko@xxxxxxx,msb@xxxxxxxxxxxx,rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx,snanda@xxxxxxxxxxxx,xiaobing.tu@xxxxxxxxx,xindong.ma@xxxxxxxxx
From: akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 15:07:35 -0800
The patch titled
Subject: oom_kill: has_intersects_mems_allowed() needs rcu_read_lock()
has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
oom_kill-has_intersects_mems_allowed-needs-rcu_read_lock.patch
This patch should soon appear at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/oom_kill-has_intersects_mems_allowed-needs-rcu_read_lock.patch
and later at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/oom_kill-has_intersects_mems_allowed-needs-rcu_read_lock.patch
Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated
there every 3-4 working days
------------------------------------------------------
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: oom_kill: has_intersects_mems_allowed() needs rcu_read_lock()
At least out_of_memory() calls has_intersects_mems_allowed() without even
rcu_read_lock(), this is obviously buggy.
Add the necessary rcu_read_lock(). This means that we can not simply
return from the loop, we need "bool ret" and "break".
While at it, swap the names of task_struct's (the argument and the local).
This cleans up the code a little bit and avoids the unnecessary
initialization.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@xxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Sameer Nanda <snanda@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Ma, Xindong" <xindong.ma@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "Tu, Xiaobing" <xiaobing.tu@xxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/oom_kill.c | 19 +++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff -puN mm/oom_kill.c~oom_kill-has_intersects_mems_allowed-needs-rcu_read_lock mm/oom_kill.c
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c~oom_kill-has_intersects_mems_allowed-needs-rcu_read_lock
+++ a/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -47,18 +47,20 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(zone_scan_lock);
#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
/**
* has_intersects_mems_allowed() - check task eligiblity for kill
- * @tsk: task struct of which task to consider
+ * @start: task struct of which task to consider
* @mask: nodemask passed to page allocator for mempolicy ooms
*
* Task eligibility is determined by whether or not a candidate task, @tsk,
* shares the same mempolicy nodes as current if it is bound by such a policy
* and whether or not it has the same set of allowed cpuset nodes.
*/
-static bool has_intersects_mems_allowed(struct task_struct *tsk,
+static bool has_intersects_mems_allowed(struct task_struct *start,
const nodemask_t *mask)
{
- struct task_struct *start = tsk;
+ struct task_struct *tsk;
+ bool ret = false;
+ rcu_read_lock();
for_each_thread(start, tsk) {
if (mask) {
/*
@@ -67,19 +69,20 @@ static bool has_intersects_mems_allowed(
* mempolicy intersects current, otherwise it may be
* needlessly killed.
*/
- if (mempolicy_nodemask_intersects(tsk, mask))
- return true;
+ ret = mempolicy_nodemask_intersects(tsk, mask);
} else {
/*
* This is not a mempolicy constrained oom, so only
* check the mems of tsk's cpuset.
*/
- if (cpuset_mems_allowed_intersects(current, tsk))
- return true;
+ ret = cpuset_mems_allowed_intersects(current, tsk);
}
+ if (ret)
+ break;
}
+ rcu_read_unlock();
- return false;
+ return ret;
}
#else
static bool has_intersects_mems_allowed(struct task_struct *tsk,
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from oleg@xxxxxxxxxx are
introduce-for_each_thread-to-replace-the-buggy-while_each_thread.patch
oom_kill-change-oom_killc-to-use-for_each_thread.patch
oom_kill-has_intersects_mems_allowed-needs-rcu_read_lock.patch
oom_kill-add-rcu_read_lock-into-find_lock_task_mm.patch
autofs4-allow-autofs-to-work-outside-the-initial-pid-namespace.patch
autofs4-translate-pids-to-the-right-namespace-for-the-daemon.patch
coredump-set_dumpable-fix-the-theoretical-race-with-itself.patch
coredump-kill-mmf_dumpable-and-mmf_dump_securely.patch
coredump-make-__get_dumpable-get_dumpable-inline-kill-fs-coredumph.patch
proc-cleanup-simplify-get_task_state-task_state_array.patch
proc-fix-the-potential-use-after-free-in-first_tid.patch
proc-change-first_tid-to-use-while_each_thread-rather-than-next_thread.patch
proc-dont-abuse-group_leader-in-proc_task_readdir-paths.patch
proc-fix-f_pos-overflows-in-first_tid.patch
kernel-forkc-remove-redundant-null-check-in-dup_mm.patch
exec-check_unsafe_exec-use-while_each_thread-rather-than-next_thread.patch
exec-check_unsafe_exec-kill-the-dead-eagain-and-clear_in_exec-logic.patch
exec-move-the-final-allow_write_access-fput-into-free_bprm.patch
exec-kill-task_struct-did_exec.patch
fs-proc-arrayc-change-do_task_stat-to-use-while_each_thread.patch
kernel-sysc-k_getrusage-can-use-while_each_thread.patch
kernel-signalc-change-do_signal_stop-do_sigaction-to-use-while_each_thread.patch
linux-next.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
