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 S1752780AbeE3Lwu (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 30 May 2018 07:52:50 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:39609 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751817AbeE3Lwt (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 30 May 2018 07:52:49 -0400
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 13:52:46 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>, peterz@infradead.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, mingo@kernel.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        keescook@chromium.org, riel@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, marcos.souza.org@gmail.com,
        hoeun.ryu@gmail.com, pasha.tatashin@oracle.com, gs051095@gmail.com,
        dhowells@redhat.com, rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm->owner to mm->memcg fixes
Message-ID: <20180530115246.GB20910@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20180504142056.GA26151@redhat.com>
 <87r2mrh4is.fsf@xmission.com>
 <20180504145435.GA26573@redhat.com>
 <87y3gzfmjt.fsf@xmission.com>
 <20180504162209.GB26573@redhat.com>
 <871serfk77.fsf@xmission.com>
 <87tvrncoyc.fsf_-_@xmission.com>
 <20180510121418.GD5325@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20180522125757.GL20020@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <87wovu889o.fsf@xmission.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87wovu889o.fsf@xmission.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed 23-05-18 14:46:43, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
[...]
> As two processes sharing an mm is useless and highly unlikely there is
> no need to handle this case well, it just needs to be handled well
> enough to prevent an indefinite loop.  So when css_tryget_online fails
> just treat the mm as belong to the root memory cgroup.

Does that mean that a malicious user can construct such a task and
runaway from its limits?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs