linux-kernel - Re: [why oom_adj does not work] Re: Linux killed Kenny, bastard!

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:	Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:04:37 -0500
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
Cc:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [why oom_adj does not work] Re: Linux killed Kenny, bastard!

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:21:06 +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov said:

> Using oom_adj? Because there is no way I can determine which number to
> put there. It is not even documented for those who do not read kernel
> sources. Even after that: oom_score changes with time, and having 1/2 or
> 8 oom_adj is correct right now, it will not be in a few moments.

In that case, the *real* problem to be fixed is a lack of documentation.
It should be possible to add a blurb somewhere in Documentation/* that
says:

"echo 10000 > oom_adjust" is guaranteed to make this process the first one
up against the wall when the revolution comes (for some value of 10000, of
course).

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped