linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/11] userspace out of memory handling

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:	Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:23:57 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Jianguo Wu <wujianguo@...wei.com>,
	Tim Hockin <thockin@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 00/11] userspace out of memory handling

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014, Tejun Heo 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.
> 

I'm referring to system oom handling as an example above, in case you 
missed my earlier email a few minutes ago: the previous patchset did not 
include support for system oom handling.  Nothing that I wrote above was 
possible with the first patchset.  This is the complete support.

> 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
> accidentally.
> 

This patchset provides a solution to a real-world problem that is not 
solved with any other patchset.  I expect it to be reviewed as any other 
patchset, it's not an "RFC" from my perspective: it's a proposal for 
inclusion.  Don't worry, Andrew is not going to apply anything 
accidentally.
--
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/