linux-kernel - Re: tmpfs and the OOM killer

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: <20070411233921.7a5c3cff@the-village.bc.nu>
Date:	Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:39:21 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Pedro <linux_user@...cksohn.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: tmpfs and the OOM killer

>   2) How should an application be written to not be killed by OOM?

OOM isn't an application matter. The kernel has to choose between
allowing overcommit on the basis it might run out of memory and have to
kill stuff, or that it won't in which case an applicatio which correctly
handles malloc() and similar failures will not be killed (unless it is
out of space on a stack grow which is a C language flaw as you can't
catch that event in C)

It's configured by /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory

0 - try and spot obviously dumb allocations
1 - anything goes
2 - strictly control resource commit
-
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/