linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] doc, mm: clarify /proc/<pid>/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]

Date:   Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:18:13 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] doc, mm: clarify /proc/<pid>/oom_score value range

On Thu 09-07-20 15:41:11, Yafang Shao wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 2:26 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> >
> > The exported value includes oom_score_adj so the range is no [0, 1000]
> > as described in the previous section but rather [0, 2000]. Mention that
> > fact explicitly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst
> > index 8e3b5dffcfa8..78a0dec323a3 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst
> > @@ -1673,6 +1673,9 @@ requires CAP_SYS_RESOURCE.
> >  3.2 /proc/<pid>/oom_score - Display current oom-killer score
> >  -------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > +Please note that the exported value includes oom_score_adj so it is effectively
> > +in range [0,2000].
> > +
> 
> [0, 2000] may be not a proper range, see my reply in another thread.[1]
> As this value hasn't been documented before and nobody notices that, I
> think there might be no user really care about it before.
> So we should discuss the proper range if we really think the user will
> care about this value.

Even if we decide the range should change, I do not really assume this
will happen, it is good to have the existing behavior clarified.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs