| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 12:54:11 +0100 From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: righiandr@...rs.sourceforge.net Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] VM: per-user overcommit policy > When $VERY_CRITICAL_DAEMON dies *all* the users blame the sysadmin [me]. If a > user application dies because a malloc() returns NULL, the sysadmin [I] can > blame the user saying: "hey! _you_ tried to hog the machine and _your_ > application is not able to handle the NULL result of the malloc()s!"... :-) If you allow overcommit by the daemons and not user space then some of the time you will still get out of memory kills which may well hit your daemon process. > A solution could be to define the critical processes unkillable via > /proc/<pid>/oom_adj, but the per-process approach doesn't resolve all the > possible cases and it's quite difficult to manage in big environments, like HPC > clusters. If you are running no overcommit you should never get an out of memory kill. > Anyway, it seems that I need to deepen my knowledge about the recent development > of process containers and openvz... I think that does what you need - you'd create containers for critical services and for the users and split resources to protect one from the other. - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists