linux-kernel - Re:[PATCH v2]oom-kill: CAP_SYS

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1011031847450.21550@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Wed, 3 Nov 2010 18:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	"Figo.zhang" <zhangtianfei@...dcoretech.com>
cc:	figo zhang <figo1802@...il.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re:[PATCH v2]oom-kill: CAP_SYS_RESOURCE should get bonus

On Thu, 4 Nov 2010, Figo.zhang wrote:

> > > CAP_SYS_RESOURCE also had better get 3% bonus for protection.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Would you like to elaborate as to why?
> > 
> > 
> 
> process with CAP_SYS_RESOURCE capibility which have system resource
> limits, like journaling resource on ext3/4 filesystem, RTC clock. so it
> also the same treatment as process with CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
> 

NACK, there's no justification that these tasks should be given a 3% 
memory bonus in the oom killer heuristic; in fact, since they can allocate 
without limits it is more important to target these tasks if they are 
using an egregious amount of memory.  CAP_SYS_RESOURCE threads have the 
ability to lower their own oom_score_adj values, thus, they should protect 
themselves if necessary like everything else.
--
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/