lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill: wake futex waiters before annihilating victim shared mutex
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 19:46:57 -0500 Nico Pache <npache@redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 12/7/21 18:47, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > (cc's added)
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 16:49:02 -0500 Joel Savitz <jsavitz@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In the case that two or more processes share a futex located within
> >> a shared mmaped region, such as a process that shares a lock between
> >> itself and a number of child processes, we have observed that when
> >> a process holding the lock is oom killed, at least one waiter is never
> >> alerted to this new development and simply continues to wait.
> >
> > Well dang. Is there any way of killing off that waiting process, or do
> > we have a resource leak here?
>
> If I understood your question correctly, there is a way to recover the system by
> killing the process that is utilizing the futex; however, the purpose of robust
> futexes is to avoid having to do this.

OK. My concern was whether we have a way in which userspace can
permanently leak memory, which opens a (lame) form of denial-of-service
attack.

> >From my work with Joel on this it seems like a race is occurring between the
> oom_reaper and the exit signal sent to the OMM'd process. By setting the
> futex_exit_release before these signals are sent we avoid this.

OK. It would be nice if the patch had some comments explaining *why*
we're doing this strange futex thing here. Although that wouldn't be
necessary if futex_exit_release() was documented...

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-08 02:59    [W:2.400 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site