Re: [PATCH] mm,page_alloc: PF_WQ_WORKER threads must sleep at should_reclaim_retry().

[David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018, Tetsuo Handa wrote:

> On 2018/08/03 15:16, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 03-08-18 07:05:54, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> On 2018/07/31 14:09, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> On Tue 31-07-18 06:01:48, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >>>> On 2018/07/31 4:10, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>>> Since should_reclaim_retry() should be a natural reschedule point,
> >>>>> let's do the short sleep for PF_WQ_WORKER threads unconditionally in
> >>>>> order to guarantee that other pending work items are started. This will
> >>>>> workaround this problem and it is less fragile than hunting down when
> >>>>> the sleep is missed. E.g. we used to have a sleeping point in the oom
> >>>>> path but this has been removed recently because it caused other issues.
> >>>>> Having a single sleeping point is more robust.
> >>>>
> >>>> linux.git has not removed the sleeping point in the OOM path yet. Since removing the
> >>>> sleeping point in the OOM path can mitigate CVE-2016-10723, please do so immediately.
> >>>
> >>> is this an {Acked,Reviewed,Tested}-by?
> >>>
> >>> I will send the patch to Andrew if the patch is ok. 
> >>>
> >>>> (And that change will conflict with Roman's cgroup aware OOM killer patchset. But it
> >>>> should be easy to rebase.)
> >>>
> >>> That is still a WIP so I would lose sleep over it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Now that Roman's cgroup aware OOM killer patchset will be dropped from linux-next.git ,
> >> linux-next.git will get the sleeping point removed. Please send this patch to linux-next.git .
> > 
> > I still haven't heard any explicit confirmation that the patch works for
> > your workload. Should I beg for it? Or you simply do not want to have
> > your stamp on the patch? If yes, I can live with that but this playing
> > hide and catch is not really a lot of fun.
> > 
> 
> I noticed that the patch has not been sent to linux-next.git yet.
> Please send to linux-next.git without my stamp on the patch.
> 

For those of us who are tracking CVE-2016-10723 which has peristently been 
labeled as "disputed" and with no clear indication of what patches address 
it, I am assuming that commit 9bfe5ded054b ("mm, oom: remove sleep from 
under oom_lock") and this patch are the intended mitigations?

A list of SHA1s for merged fixed and links to proposed patches to address 
this issue would be appreciated.