[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/6] kmod: make __request_module() killable
On 02/15, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:49:14 +0100
> Oleg Nesterov <> wrote:
> > As Tetsuo Handa pointed out, request_module() can stress the
> > system while the oom-killed caller sleeps in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE.
> Whine.
> Solving this problem is the entire point of the entire patchset and you
> told us almost nothing about it. Please, provide a complete
> description of the problem which is being solved, so we can understand
> the value of the patchset?

I did ;) from the message I sent to security list:

Tetsuo has the test-cases, but the problem (well, one of the problems) is

The task T uses "almost all" memory, then it does something which triggers
request_module(). Say, it can simply call sys_socket(). This in turn needs
more memory and leads to OOM. oom-killer correctly chooses T and kills it,
but this can't help because it sleeps in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE and after
that oom-killer becomes "disabled" by the TIF_MEMDIE task T.

Credits to Tetsuo.

But in fact I think this change is "obviously good" anyway. Assuming
it is correct of course. request_module() is heavy, it can take the
unpredictable amount of time/resources to finish. It is not good we
can't interrupt the task which waits for completion.

Yes, this adds some complications and initially I wasn't agree with
Tetsuo, I thought this doesn't worth the trouble. But I hope that
this code is simple/clean enough.

Btw, there is another example of "unbounded" sleep in UNINTERRUPTIBLE,
vfork. I already have the patches, will send today.


 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-16 16:13    [W:0.095 / U:5.268 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site