linux-kernel - Re: [RFC -v2] panic_on_oom

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]

Message-ID: <20150617132427.GG25056@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:24:27 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, rientjes@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
	tj@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC -v2] panic_on_oom_timeout

On Wed 17-06-15 14:51:27, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> The important thing is to decide what is the reasonable way forward. We
> have two two implementations of panic based timeout. So we should decide

And the most obvious question, of course.
- Should we add a panic timeout at all?

> - Should be the timeout bound to panic_on_oom?
> - Should we care about constrained OOM contexts?
> - If yes should they use the same timeout?
> - If yes should each memcg be able to define its own timeout?
       ^ no
 
> My thinking is that it should be bound to panic_on_oom=1 only until we
> hear from somebody actually asking for a constrained oom and even then
> do not allow for too large configuration space (e.g. no per-memcg
> timeout) or have separate mempolicy vs. memcg timeouts.
> 
> Let's start simple and make things more complicated later!

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/