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  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:	Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:08:10 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Rientjes <>
To:	Tejun Heo <>
cc:	Andrew Morton <>,
	Johannes Weiner <>,
	Michal Hocko <>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <>,
	Christoph Lameter <>,
	Pekka Enberg <>,
	Mel Gorman <>, Oleg Nesterov <>,
	Rik van Riel <>,
	Jianguo Wu <>,
	Tim Hockin <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [patch 00/11] userspace out of memory handling

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:

> > This includes system oom handling alongside memcg oom handling.  If you 
> > have specific objections, please let us know, thanks!
> Umm, that wasn't the bulk of objection, was it?  We were discussion
> the whole premise of userland oom handling and the conclusion, at
> best, was that you couldn't show that it was actually necessary and
> most other people disliked the idea.

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion: it's necessary because any 
process handling the oom condition will need memory to do anything useful.  
How else would a process that is handling a system oom condition, for 
example, be able to obtain a list of processes, check memory usage, issue 
a kill, do any logging, collect heap or smaps samples, or signal processes 
to throttle incoming requests without having access to memory itself?  The 
system is oom.

> Just changing a part of it and
> resubmitting doesn't really change the whole situation.  If you want
> to continue the discussion on the basic approach, please do continue
> that on the original thread so that we don't lose the context.  I'm
> gonna nack the respective patches so that they don't get picked up by
> accident for now.

This is going to be discussed at the LSF/mm conference, I believe it would 
be helpful to have an actual complete patchset proposed so that it can be 
discussed properly.  I feel no need to refer to an older patchset that 
would not apply and did not include all the support necessary for handling 
oom conditions.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists