| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <6599ad830907201452h5b57a444mf4be96e194cb737@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:52:29 -0700 From: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mel@....ul.ie, npiggin@...e.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] copy over oom_adj value at fork time On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:12 PM, David Rientjes<rientjes@...gle.com> wrote: > > My patches don't merely address threads that have an oom_adj value of > OOM_DISABLE while others sharing the same memory do not, they address a > consistency issue whereas those threads may all share memory but have > radically different oom_adj values: that means that only the highest > oom_adj value amongst them is actually used by the oom killer and all > other oom_adj values set by the user for those threads are wrong. But these patches change an API that has existed for at least 4 years (i.e. before git history exists) and the change is known to break some apps that relied on the existing API. Should there be more justification than to fix an inconsistency that only you seem to be claiming is a problem? (Yes, I know it also fixes the OOM killer livelock, but that could be done without breaking the API). Paul -- 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