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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200612081959.04515.a1426z@gawab.com>
Date:	Fri, 8 Dec 2006 19:59:04 +0300
From:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To:	Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: additional oom-killer tuneable worth submitting?

Alan wrote:
> > What I understood from Arjan is that the problem isn't swapspace, but
> > rather that shared-libs are implement via a COW trick, which always
> > overcommits, no matter what.
>
> The zero overcommit layer accounts address space not pages.

So OOM can still occur?

> > Are you saying there is some new no-overcommit functionality in 2.6.19,
> > or has this been there before?
>
> Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a very long time, got merged upstream a long
> long time ago to. Then got various fixes along the way. It's old
> functionality.

That's what I thought, but it's still really easy to OOM even with 
no-overcommit.

Using ulimit -v [total VMsize/runqueue] seems to inhibit this rather 
effectively, but needs to be maintained dynamically per process.

Couldn't this be handled by the kernel?

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/