Message-ID: <41521258.8000702@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:01:28 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040820 Debian/1.7.2-4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thomas Habets <thomas@habets.pp.se>
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom_pardon, aka don't kill my xlock
References: <200409230123.30858.thomas@habets.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <200409230123.30858.thomas@habets.pp.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1236
Lines: 31

Thomas Habets wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> How about a sysctl that does "for the love of kbaek, don't ever kill these 
> processes when OOM. If nothing else can be killed, I'd rather you panic"?
> 
> Examples for this list would be /usr/bin/vlock and /usr/X11R6/bin/xlock. 
> I just got a very uncomfortable surprise when found my box unlocked thanks to 
> this.
> 
> After playing around a bit, I made the patch below, but it's almost completely 
> untested. I'm not even sure I take the binaries name from the right place. 
> And I don't know if the locking can race. If it's too ugly then it'd be great 
> if someone implemented it the right way. (iow: huge fucking disclaimer)
> 
> echo "/usr/bin/vlock /usr/X11R6/bin/xlock" > /proc/sys/vm/oom_pardon
> 

Hi,
Nice idea. It could probably made include-worthy if you just set a flag in the
task struct in question.

Also, use pid numbers instead of names, I think. (Or prctl? What is the
'preferred' way of setting random per-process flags?)

Nick
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/