[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110701112534.GG20990@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 13:25:34 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...e.fr>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] ipc: introduce shm_rmid_forced sysctl
* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > --- a/ipc/shm.c
> > +++ b/ipc/shm.c
> > @@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ void shm_init_ns(struct ipc_namespace *ns)
> > ns->shm_ctlmax = SHMMAX;
> > ns->shm_ctlall = SHMALL;
> > ns->shm_ctlmni = SHMMNI;
> > + ns->shm_rmid_forced = 0;
> > ns->shm_tot = 0;
> > ipc_init_ids(&shm_ids(ns));
> > }
>
> The problem is that nobody will test your feature. So for testing
> purposes, let's enable the feature by default. I assume this:
I'd also strongly argue to keep this as a default. OOM-kills are not
part of POSIX and violate POSIX in a number of ways already.
Furthermore, if testing shows that this is not actually breaking
anything in a serious way we could also in theory simplify the patch
and just make this the default behavior with no runtime ability to
switch it off.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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