linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] oom: don't kill random process

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, 24 May 2011 10:53:54 +0900
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	minchan.kim@...il.com
CC:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, caiqian@...hat.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
	hughd@...gle.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] oom: don't kill random process

>> +       /*
>> +        * chosen_point==1 may be a sign that root privilege bonus is too large
>> +        * and we choose wrong task. Let's recalculate oom score without the
>> +        * dubious bonus.
>> +        */
>> +       if (protect_root&&  (chosen_points == 1)) {
>> +               protect_root = 0;
>> +               goto retry;
>> +       }
>
> The idea is good to me.
> But once we meet it, should we give up protecting root privileged processes?
> How about decaying bonus point?

After applying my patch, unprivileged process never get score-1. (note, mapping
anon pages naturally makes to increase nr_ptes)

Then, decaying don't make any accuracy. Am I missing something?


--
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/