From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1161927AbcE3T3D (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 30 May 2016 15:29:03 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40717 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1161710AbcE3T3C (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 30 May 2016 15:29:02 -0400
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 21:28:57 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] mm, oom: skip vforked tasks from being selected
Message-ID: <20160530192856.GA25696@redhat.com>
References: <1464613556-16708-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <1464613556-16708-5-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1464613556-16708-5-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.27]); Mon, 30 May 2016 19:29:00 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 05/30, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> Make sure to not select vforked task as an oom victim by checking
> vfork_done in oom_badness.

I agree, this look like a good change to me... But.

> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -176,11 +176,13 @@ unsigned long oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Do not even consider tasks which are explicitly marked oom
> -	 * unkillable or have been already oom reaped.
> +	 * unkillable or have been already oom reaped or the are in
> +	 * the middle of vfork
>  	 */
>  	adj = (long)p->signal->oom_score_adj;
>  	if (adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN ||
> -			test_bit(MMF_OOM_REAPED, &p->mm->flags)) {
> +			test_bit(MMF_OOM_REAPED, &p->mm->flags) ||
> +			p->vfork_done) {

I don't think we can trust vfork_done != NULL.

copy_process() doesn't disallow CLONE_VFORK without CLONE_VM, so with this patch
it would be trivial to make the exploit which hides a memory hog from oom-killer.

So perhaps we need something like

		bool in_vfork(p)
		{
			return	p->vfork_done &&
				p->real_parent->mm == mm;

			
		}

task_lock() is not enough if CLONE_VM was used along with CLONE_PARENT... so this
also needs rcu_read_lock() to access ->real_parent.

Or I am totally confused?

Oleg.