Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 750399
CVE-2011-4097 kernel: oom_badness() integer overflow
Last modified: 2016-03-04 06:55:38 EST
An integer overflow will happen on 64bit archs if task's sum of rss, swapents and nr_ptes exceeds (2^31)/1000 value. This was introduced by commit f755a04 oom: use pte pages in OOM score
where the oom score computation was divided into several steps and it's no longer computed as one expression in unsigned long(rss, swapents, nr_pte are unsigned long), where the result value assigned to points(int) is in range(1..1000). So there could be an int overflow while computing
176 points *= 1000;
and points may have negative value. Meaning the oom score for a mem hog task will be one.
196 if (points <= 0)
197 return 1;
[ 3366] 0 3366 35390480 24303939 5 0 0 oom01
Out of memory: Kill process 3366 (oom01) score 1 or sacrifice child
Here the oom1 process consumes more than 24303939(rss)*4096~=92GB physical memory, but it's oom score is one.
In this situation the mem hog task is skipped and oom killer kills another and most probably innocent task with oom score greater than one.
The points variable should be of type long instead of int to prevent the int overflow.
Signed-off-by: Frantisek Hrbata <email@example.com>
mm/oom_kill.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index 626303b..e9a1785 100644
@@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ static bool oom_unkillable_task(struct task_struct *p,
unsigned int oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
const nodemask_t *nodemask, unsigned long totalpages)
- int points;
+ long points;
if (oom_unkillable_task(p, mem, nodemask))
Red Hat would like to thank Shubham Goyal for reporting this issue.
Created kernel tracking bugs for this issue
Affects: fedora-all [bug 750402]
This issue did not affect the Linux kernel as shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, 5, and 6 as they did not backport the upstream commit f755a04 that introduced this. This has been addressed in Red Hat Enterprise MRG via https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2012-0333.html.
This issue has been addressed in following products:
MRG for RHEL-6 v.2
Via RHSA-2012:0333 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2012-0333.html