| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:57:41 -0600 From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com> To: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: additional oom-killer tuneable worth submitting? Jesper Juhl wrote: >> Jesper Juhl wrote: >> > What happens in the case where the OOM killer really, really needs to >> > kill one or more processes since there is not a single drop of memory >> > available, but all processes are below their configured thresholds? > I realize that if this case happens the system is misconfigured as far > as oomthresh goes, but if this is a knob that we put in the mainline > kernel then I believe there should be some sort of emergency handling > code that takes this situation into account. Perhaps throw some very > nasty looking log messages and then fall back to the classic OOM > killer behaviour..? Yeah, I can see that the reboot might be a bit drastic for mainline. I think the fallback to classic behaviour might work okay. Anyway, the chances of hitting that case are likely pretty slim. The way we've been using this is to only set the threshold for fairly important long-lived daemons. Much of the "standard" stuff (shell, cat, cp, mv, etc.) is left unprotected. Chris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists