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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 8 Dec 2006 16:58:29 +0300
From:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: additional oom-killer tuneable worth submitting?

Alan wrote:
> > 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.

Alan, I think you know that this isn't really true, due to shared-libs.

> Now there is an argument for
> a meaningful rlimit-as to go with it, and together I think they do what
> you really need.

The problem with rlimit is that it works per process.  Tuning this by hand 
may be awkward and/or wasteful.  What we need is to rlimit on a global 
basis, by calculating an upperlimit dynamically, such as to avoid 
overcommit/OOM.

Thanks!

--
Al

-
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/