linux-kernel - Re: [patch 5/5] oom: invoke OOM killer from pagefault handler

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]

Message-ID: <20061012151907.GB18463@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:19:07 +0200
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>
Cc:	Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 5/5] oom: invoke OOM killer from pagefault handler

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 07:12:13PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> Nick,
> 
> AFAICS, 1 page allocation which is done in page fault handler
> can fail in the only case - OOM kills current, so if we failed
> we should have TIF_MEMDIE and just kill current.
> Selecting another process for killing if page fault fails means
> taking another victim with the one being already killed.
> 

Hi Kirill,

I don't quite understand you. If the page allocation fails in the
fault handler, we don't want to kill current if it is marked as
OOM_DISABLE or sysctl_panic_on_oom is set... imagine a critical
service in a failover system.

It should be quite likely for another process to be kiled and
provide enough memory to keep the system running. Presuming you
have faith in the concept of the OOM killer ;)

Cheers,
Nick

-
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/