linux-kernel - Re: 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]

Date:	Wed, 3 Nov 2010 19:54:53 -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: Re:[PATCH v2]oom-kill: CAP_SYS_RESOURCE should get bonus

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

> In your new heuristic, you also get CAP_SYS_RESOURCE to protection.
> see fs/proc/base.c, line 1167:
> 	if (oom_score_adj < task->signal->oom_score_adj &&
> 			!capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) {
> 		err = -EACCES;
> 		goto err_sighand;
> 	}

That's unchanged from the old behavior with oom_adj.

> so i want to protect some process like normal process not
> CAP_SYS_RESOUCE, i set a small oom_score_adj , if new oom_score_adj is
> small than now and it is not limited resource, it will not adjust, that
> seems not right?
> 

Tasks without CAP_SYS_RESOURCE cannot lower their own oom_score_adj, 
otherwise it can trivially kill other tasks.  They can, however, increase 
their own oom_score_adj so the oom killer prefers to kill it first.

I think you may be confused: CAP_SYS_RESOURCE override resource limits.
--
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/