linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND RFC] SIGOOM Proposal

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <CPQH35GSU0TW.3KU1UVKUYFI0E@hardclanz>
Date:   Thu, 12 Jan 2023 22:52:51 +0300
From:   "Arseniy Lesin" <emptiedsoul@...dclanz.org>
To:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC] SIGOOM Proposal

> It's actually worse than this.  The problem is space in the signal
> mask.
Yeah, i've realized it right after sending my letter first time.

I am going to use Willy's approach to use prctl() to enable process to
choose a signal for OOM event.

> AIX had a similar SIGDANGER signal which was sent to all processes
> when memory was low.  By default, it was ignored, but processes that
> were aware of it could use this as an opportunity to shrink their
> memory footprint.
Now should we go the same way and send SIGOOM to all receiving processes
or keep it targeted? Make it configurable?

Thanks.