oom_kill: add rcu_read_lock() into find_lock_task_mm()
find_lock_task_mm() expects it is called under rcu or tasklist lock, but
it seems that at least oom_unkillable_task()->task_in_mem_cgroup() and
mem_cgroup_out_of_memory()->oom_badness() can call it lockless.
Perhaps we could fix the callers, but this patch simply adds rcu lock
into find_lock_task_mm(). This also allows to simplify a bit one of its
callers, oom_kill_process().
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@gmail.com>
Cc: Sameer Nanda <snanda@chromium.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org>
Cc: "Ma, Xindong" <xindong.ma@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: "Tu, Xiaobing" <xiaobing.tu@intel.com>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index 0d8ad1e..054ff47 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -102,14 +102,19 @@
{
struct task_struct *t;
+ rcu_read_lock();
+
for_each_thread(p, t) {
task_lock(t);
if (likely(t->mm))
- return t;
+ goto found;
task_unlock(t);
}
+ t = NULL;
+found:
+ rcu_read_unlock();
- return NULL;
+ return t;
}
/* return true if the task is not adequate as candidate victim task. */
@@ -461,10 +466,8 @@
}
read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
- rcu_read_lock();
p = find_lock_task_mm(victim);
if (!p) {
- rcu_read_unlock();
put_task_struct(victim);
return;
} else if (victim != p) {
@@ -490,6 +493,7 @@
* That thread will now get access to memory reserves since it has a
* pending fatal signal.
*/
+ rcu_read_lock();
for_each_process(p)
if (p->mm == mm && !same_thread_group(p, victim) &&
!(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)) {