linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/3] oom, sysrq: Skip over oom victims and killed tasks

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:	Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:37:21 +0000
From:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] oom, sysrq: Skip over oom victims and killed tasks

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 11:12:18 +0100
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Thu 14-01-16 13:51:16, David Rientjes wrote:
> > I think it's time to kill sysrq+F and I'll send those two patches
> > unless there is a usecase I'm not aware of.
> 
> I have described one in the part you haven't quoted here. Let me repeat:
> : Your system might be trashing to the point you are not able to log in
> : and resolve the situation in a reasonable time yet you are still not
> : OOM. sysrq+f is your only choice then.
> 
> Could you clarify why it is better to ditch a potentially usefull
> emergency tool rather than to make it work reliably and predictably?

Even if it doesn't work reliably and predictably it is *still* better
than removing it as it works currently. Today we have "might save you a
reboot", the removal turns it into "you'll have to reboot". That's a
regression.

Alan