From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29B9F900086 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 20:57:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vws4 with SMTP id 4so1436011vws.14 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:57:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110414093549.80539260.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20110329101234.54d5d45a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110414092033.0809.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110414093549.80539260.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:57:42 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] forkbomb killer From: Minchan Kim Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , Andrew Morton , Hiroyuki Kamezawa , Michel Lespinasse , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "rientjes@google.com" , Andrey Vagin , Hugh Dickins , Johannes Weiner , Rik van Riel Hi, KOSAKI and Kame. On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:35 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:20:41 +0900 (JST) > KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > >> Hi, Minchan, Kamezawa-san, >> >> > >> So whenever user push sysrq, older tasks would be killed and at las= t, >> > >> root forkbomb task would be killed. >> > >> >> > > >> > > Maybe good for a single user system and it can send Sysrq. >> > > But I myself not very excited with this new feature becasuse I need = to >> > > run to push Sysrq .... >> > > >> > > Please do as you like, I think the idea itself is interesting. >> > > But I love some automatic ones. I do other jobs. >> > >> > Okay. Thanks for the comment, Kame. >> > >> > I hope Andrew or someone gives feedback forkbomb problem itself before >> > diving into this. >> >> May I ask current status of this thread? I'm unhappy if our kernel keep >> to have forkbomb weakness. ;) > > I've stopped updating but can restart at any time. (And I found a bug ;) > >> Can we consider to take either or both idea? >> > I think yes, both idea can be used. > One idea is > =C2=A0- kill all recent threads by Sysrq. The user can use Sysrq multiple= times > =C2=A0 until forkbomb stops. > Another(mine) is > =C2=A0- kill all problematic in automatic. This adds some tracking costs = but > =C2=A0 can be configurable. > > Thanks, > -Kame > > Unfortunately, we didn't have a slot to discuss the oom and forkbomb. So, personally, I talked it with some guys(who we know very well :) ) for a moment during lunch time at LSF/MM. It seems he doesn't feel strongly we really need it and still I am not sure it, either. Now most important thing is to listen other's opinions about we really need it and we need it in kernel. And I have a idea to implement my one in automatic, too. :) Thanks for your interest. --=20 Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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: email@kvack.org