linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Make new setting of panic_on

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
cc:	Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel ML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make new setting of panic_on_oom

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 08:43:56PM +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote:
> > 
> > The current panic_on_oom may not work if there is a process using 
> > cpusets/mempolicy, because other nodes' memory may still free.
> > But some people want failover by panic ASAP even if they are used.
> > This patch makes new setting for its request.
> > 
> > This is not tested yet. But it would work.
> 
> >  	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> >  
> > +	if (sysctl_panic_on_oom == 2)
> > +		panic("out of memory. Compulsory panic_on_oom is selected.\n");
> > +
> 
> Wouldn't it be safer to put the panic before the read_lock()?

I agree. Otherwise the patch seem to be okay.

-
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/