linux-kernel - Re: Improving 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]

Date:	Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:34:38 +0100
From:	Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@...e.cz>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: Improving OOM killer

On Wednesday 10 of February 2010, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 02/10/2010 03:54 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> >   Simply computing the cost of the whole children subtree (or a
> > reasonable approximation) avoids the need for any magic numbers and gives
> > a much better representation of how costly the subtree is, since, well,
> > it is the cost itself.
>
> That assumes you want to kill off that entire tree.

 As said in another mail, I think I actually do, since the entire tree is 
indentified as the problem. But regardless of that, surely computing the cost 
of a forkbomb by computing something that is close to the actual cost of it 
is better than trying magic numbers?

-- 
 Lubos Lunak
 openSUSE Boosters team, KDE developer
 l.lunak@...e.cz , l.lunak@....org
--
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/