On Tue 31-05-16 23:43:38, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 30-05-16 21:28:57, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think we can trust vfork_done != NULL.
> > >
> > > copy_process() doesn't disallow CLONE_VFORK without CLONE_VM, so with
> > > this patch
> > >
On 05/31, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Mon 30-05-16 21:28:57, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > 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
On Mon 30-05-16 21:28:57, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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
> > @@
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,
4 matches
Mail list logo