Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758190AbZANBLz (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:11:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752666AbZANBLp (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:11:45 -0500 Received: from THUNK.ORG ([69.25.196.29]:45552 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752472AbZANBLp (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:11:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:11:38 -0500 From: Theodore Tso To: Evgeniy Polyakov Cc: David Rientjes , Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Linux killed Kenny, bastard! Message-ID: <20090114011137.GC14730@mit.edu> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , Evgeniy Polyakov , David Rientjes , Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds References: <20090113085244.GA13796@ioremap.net> <20090113115408.GA22289@ioremap.net> <20090113121510.68a55fe9@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090113122904.GC25011@ioremap.net> <20090113214627.GC27227@ioremap.net> <20090113224941.GA14730@mit.edu> <20090113230240.GA30192@ioremap.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090113230240.GA30192@ioremap.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@mit.edu X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1747 Lines: 35 On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 02:02:40AM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > As Alan has already pointed out to you: > > > > (echo XXXX > /proc/self/oom_adj ; exec /usr/bin/program) > > Yes, I saw that in archive, but did not receive myself, so did not > answer. This works in the above simple case, but if we dig a little bit > into the case when there are children, parent has to live and not all > children should be considered equal by the oom-killer, things change > dramatially. And we can not change the sources. Well, in particaular my > case we can, but it is not about the single system :) I think you will find that most people are far more interested in making sure we define consistent, usable interfaces --- and depending on process names is a complete and total hack. Justifying it by claiming that we won't be able to change application source code, so we have to use a hack, isn't going to get you very far. The security implications alone are troubling; OK, so we make the process name "sshd" privileged and exempt from the OOM killer. What happens if a user creates a program called sshd in their home directory and executes it --- gee, it's protected from the OOM killer as well. It's just not going to fly. Give up now. If your argument is "we have to protect crappy closed source applications where their programmers can't be bothered to change their source code to use a proper interface", you're just going to get laughed out of the room. - Ted -- 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/