From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: minchan.kim@gmail.com
Cc: caiqian@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
rientjes@google.com, hughd@google.com,
kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, oleg@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Fix oom killer doesn't work at all if system have > gigabytes memory (aka CAI founded issue)
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:07:15 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DEC4463.1060206@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110601033258.GA12653@barrios-laptop>
>> Of course, we recommend to drop privileges as far as possible
>> instead of keeping them. Thus, oom killer don't have to check
>> any capability. It implicitly suggest wrong programming style.
>>
>> This patch change root process check way from CAP_SYS_ADMIN to
>> just euid==0.
>
> I like this but I have some comments.
> Firstly, it's not dependent with your series so I think this could
> be merged firstly.
I agree.
> Before that, I would like to make clear my concern.
> As I look below comment, 3% bonus is dependent with __vm_enough_memory's logic?
No. completely independent.
vm_enough_memory() check the task _can_ allocate more memory. IOW, the task
is subjective. And oom-killer check the task should be protected from oom-killer.
IOW, the task is objective.
> If it isn't, we can remove the comment. It would be another patch.
> If is is, could we change __vm_enough_memory for euid instead of cap?
>
> * Root processes get 3% bonus, just like the __vm_enough_memory()
> * implementation used by LSMs.
vm_enough_memory() is completely correct. I don't see any reason to change it.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: minchan.kim@gmail.com
Cc: caiqian@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
rientjes@google.com, hughd@google.com,
kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, oleg@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Fix oom killer doesn't work at all if system have > gigabytes memory (aka CAI founded issue)
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:07:15 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DEC4463.1060206@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110601033258.GA12653@barrios-laptop>
>> Of course, we recommend to drop privileges as far as possible
>> instead of keeping them. Thus, oom killer don't have to check
>> any capability. It implicitly suggest wrong programming style.
>>
>> This patch change root process check way from CAP_SYS_ADMIN to
>> just euid==0.
>
> I like this but I have some comments.
> Firstly, it's not dependent with your series so I think this could
> be merged firstly.
I agree.
> Before that, I would like to make clear my concern.
> As I look below comment, 3% bonus is dependent with __vm_enough_memory's logic?
No. completely independent.
vm_enough_memory() check the task _can_ allocate more memory. IOW, the task
is subjective. And oom-killer check the task should be protected from oom-killer.
IOW, the task is objective.
> If it isn't, we can remove the comment. It would be another patch.
> If is is, could we change __vm_enough_memory for euid instead of cap?
>
> * Root processes get 3% bonus, just like the __vm_enough_memory()
> * implementation used by LSMs.
vm_enough_memory() is completely correct. I don't see any reason to change it.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-06 3:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 118+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-05-20 8:00 [PATCH v2 0/5] Fix oom killer doesn't work at all if system have > gigabytes memory (aka CAI founded issue) KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-20 8:00 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-20 8:01 ` [PATCH 1/5] oom: improve dump_tasks() show items KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-20 8:01 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-23 22:16 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-23 22:16 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-20 8:02 ` [PATCH 2/5] oom: kill younger process first KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-20 8:02 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-23 2:37 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-23 2:37 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-23 22:20 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-23 22:20 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-20 8:03 ` [PATCH 3/5] oom: oom-killer don't use proportion of system-ram internally KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-20 8:03 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-23 3:59 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-23 3:59 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-24 1:14 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 1:14 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 1:32 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-24 1:32 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-23 4:02 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-23 4:02 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-24 1:44 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 1:44 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 3:11 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 3:11 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-23 22:28 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-23 22:28 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-23 22:48 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-23 22:48 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-24 1:21 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 1:21 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 8:32 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-24 8:32 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-26 7:08 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-26 7:08 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-27 19:12 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-27 19:12 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-24 2:07 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 2:07 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-26 9:34 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-26 9:34 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-26 9:56 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-26 9:56 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-20 8:04 ` [PATCH 4/5] oom: don't kill random process KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-20 8:04 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-23 4:31 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-23 4:31 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-24 1:53 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 1:53 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 8:46 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-24 8:46 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-24 8:49 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 8:49 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 9:04 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-24 9:04 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-24 9:09 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 9:09 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 9:20 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-24 9:20 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-24 9:38 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 9:38 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-23 22:32 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-23 22:32 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-24 1:35 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 1:35 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 1:39 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-24 1:39 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-24 1:55 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 1:55 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 1:58 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-24 1:58 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-24 2:03 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-24 2:03 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-25 23:50 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-25 23:50 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-30 1:17 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-30 1:17 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 4:48 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-31 4:48 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-31 4:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 4:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-20 8:05 ` [PATCH 5/5] oom: merge oom_kill_process() with oom_kill_task() KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-20 8:05 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 1:33 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] Fix oom killer doesn't work at all if system have > gigabytes memory (aka CAI founded issue) CAI Qian
2011-05-31 1:33 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-31 4:10 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 4:10 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 4:14 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-31 4:14 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-31 4:34 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 4:34 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 4:49 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 4:49 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 4:32 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 4:32 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 4:52 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-31 4:52 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-31 7:04 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 7:04 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 7:50 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-31 7:50 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-31 7:56 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 7:56 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 7:59 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-31 7:59 ` CAI Qian
2011-05-31 8:11 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 8:11 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 10:01 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 10:01 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-06-01 1:17 ` CAI Qian
2011-06-01 1:17 ` CAI Qian
2011-06-01 3:32 ` Minchan Kim
2011-06-01 3:32 ` Minchan Kim
2011-06-06 3:07 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2011-06-06 3:07 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-06-06 14:44 ` Minchan Kim
2011-06-06 14:44 ` Minchan Kim
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4DEC4463.1060206@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=caiqian@redhat.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.