Re: [PATCH 4/6] mm, oom: skip vforked tasks from being selected

[Michal Hocko]

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
> > @@ -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.

OK, I wasn't aware of this possibility. It sounds really weird because I
thought that the whole point of vfork is to prevent from MM copy
overhead for quick exec.

> 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?

I cannot judge I am afraid. You are definitely much more familiar with
all these subtle details than me.

So what do you think about this follow up:
---