| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:55:44 +0200 From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> 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 15:24:27, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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! Any more ideas/thoughts on this? -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists