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: <200704120219.03171.linux_user@izecksohn.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Apr 2007 02:19:02 -0300
From:	Pedro <linux_user@...cksohn.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: tmpfs and the OOM killer

On Wednesday 11 April 2007 19:39, Alan Cox wrote:
> >   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

  I deduce that a fail-safe application must scanf overcommit_memory, warn 
the user and waitpid.
-
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/