linux-kernel - [RFC 0/3] oom: few enahancements

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1452632425-20191-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:00:22 +0100
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:	<linux-mm@...ck.org>
Cc:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [RFC 0/3] oom: few enahancements

Hi,
based on the recent discussions I have accumulated the following three
patches. I haven't tested them yet but I would like to hear your
opinion. The first patch only affects sysrq+f OOM killer.  I believe it
should be relatively uncontroversial.

The patch 2 tweaks how we handle children tasks standing for the parent
oom victim. This should help the test case Tetsuo shown [1].

The patch 3 is just a rough idea. I can see objections there but this is
mainly to start discussion about ho to deal with small children which
basically do not sit on any memory. Maybe we do not need anything like
that at all and realy on multiple OOM invocations as a safer option. I
dunno but I would like to hear your opinions.

---
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201512292258.ABF87505.OFOSJLHMFVOQFt%40I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp