linux-kernel - Re: additional oom-killer tuneable worth submitting?

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: <20061207232207.01af3a79@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 7 Dec 2006 23:22:07 +0000
From:	Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: additional oom-killer tuneable worth submitting?

> We add a new "oom_thresh" member to the task struct.
> We introduce a new proc entry "/proc/<pid>/oomthresh" to control it.
> 
> The "oom-thresh" value maps to the max expected memory consumption for 
> that process.  As long as a process uses less memory than the specified 
> threshold, then it is immune to the oom-killer.

You've just introduced a deadlock. What happens if nobody is over that
predicted memory and the kernel uses more resource ?
> 
> On an embedded platform this allows the designer to engineer the system 
> and protect critical apps based on their expected memory consumption. 
> If one of those apps goes crazy and starts chewing additional memory 
> then it becomes vulnerable to the oom killer while the other apps remain 
> protected.

That is why we have no-overcommit support. Now there is an argument for
a meaningful rlimit-as to go with it, and together I think they do what
you really need.

Alan
-
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/