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 16:11:36 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <>
To:	David Rientjes <>
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

Hello, David.

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:08:10PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> 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.

We're now just re-starting the whole discussion with all context lost.
How is this a good idea?  We talked about all this previously.  If you
have something to add, add there *please* so that other people can
track it too.

> 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.

That's completely fine but if that's your intention please at least
prefix the patchset with RFC and explicitly state that no consensus
has been reached (well, it was more like negative consensus from what
I remember) in the description so that it can't be picked up


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