linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] oom_kill: avoid depends on total_vm and use real RSS/swap value for oom

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: <20091027171441.ca9600ea.minchan.kim@barrios-desktop>
Date:	Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:14:41 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	vedran.furac@...il.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk" <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	rientjes@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] oom_kill: avoid depends on total_vm and use real
 RSS/swap value for oom_score (Re: Memory overcommit

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:56:28 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:45:26 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>   	/*
> >  	 * After this unlock we can no longer dereference local variable `mm'
> > @@ -92,8 +93,13 @@ unsigned long badness(struct task_struct
> >  	 */
> >  	list_for_each_entry(child, &p->children, sibling) {
> >  		task_lock(child);
> > -		if (child->mm != mm && child->mm)
> > -			points += child->mm->total_vm/2 + 1;
> > +		if (child->mm != mm && child->mm) {
> > +			unsigned long cpoint;
> > +			/* At considering child, we don't count swap */
> > +			cpoint = get_mm_counter(child->mm, anon_rss) +
> > +				 get_mm_counter(child->mm, file_rss);
> > +			points += cpoint/2 + 1;
> > +		}
> >  		task_unlock(child);
> 
> BTW, I'd like to get rid of this code.
> 
> Can't we use other techniques for detecting fork-bomb ?
> 
> This check can't catch following type, anyway.
> 
>    fork()
>      -> fork()
>           -> fork()
>                -> fork()
>                     ....
> 
> but I have no good idea.
> What is the difference with task-launcher and fork bomb()...
> 

I think it's good as-is. 
Kernel is hard to know it by effiecient method.
It depends on applications. so Doesnt's task-launcher 
like gnome-session have to control his oom_score? 

Welcome to any ideas if kernel can do it well.

> Thanks,
> -Kame
> 


-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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/