linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sysctl_panic_on

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: <20070418104631.EE4A.Y-GOTO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:28:49 +0900
From:	Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysctl_panic_on_oom broken

> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Larry Woodman wrote:
> 
> > out_of_memory() does not panic when sysctl_panic_on_oom is set
> > if constrained_alloc() does not return CONSTRAINT_NONE.  Instead,
> > out_of_memory() kills the current process whenever constrained_alloc()
> > returns either CONSTRAINT_MEMORY_POLICY or CONSTRAINT_CPUSET.
> > This patch fixes this problem:
> 
> It recreates the old problem that we OOM while we still have memory 
> in other parts of the system.

Hmm. User's expectation is failover of clustering ASAP by panic.
Even if free memory remain due to cpuset/mempolicy setting,
some people may want failover soon.

Of course some other people don't want panic if free memory remain.
I think it depends on user.

If panic_on_oom is 1, only panic if mempolicy/cpuset is not used.
And if panic_on_oom is 2, panic on all case.
This might be desirable.

Bye.


-- 
Yasunori Goto 


-
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/