From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com
Subject: [PATCH 7/9] oom: unify CAP_SYS_RAWIO check into other superuser check
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:34:43 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100616203404.72E9.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100616201948.72D7.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Now, CAP_SYS_RAWIO check is very strange. if the user have both
CAP_SYS_ADMIN and CAP_SYS_RAWIO, points will makes 1/16.
Superuser's 1/4 bonus worthness is quite a bit dubious, but
considerable. However 1/16 is obviously insane.
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
---
mm/oom_kill.c | 17 ++++++-----------
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index e4b1146..4236d39 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -198,19 +198,14 @@ unsigned long oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long uptime)
/*
* Superuser processes are usually more important, so we make it
- * less likely that we kill those.
+ * less likely that we kill those. And we don't want to kill a
+ * process with direct hardware access. Not only could that mess
+ * up the hardware, but usually users tend to only have this
+ * flag set on applications they think of as important.
*/
if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ||
- has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
- points /= 4;
-
- /*
- * We don't want to kill a process with direct hardware access.
- * Not only could that mess up the hardware, but usually users
- * tend to only have this flag set on applications they think
- * of as important.
- */
- if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_RAWIO))
+ has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) ||
+ has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_RAWIO))
points /= 4;
/*
--
1.6.5.2
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-16 11:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-16 11:29 [PATCH 1/9] oom: don't try to kill oom_unkillable child KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:31 ` [PATCH 2/9] oom: rename badness() to oom_badness() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 14:46 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-16 21:40 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:32 ` [PATCH 3/9] oom: oom_kill_process() doesn't select kthread child KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 15:02 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:32 ` [PATCH 4/9] oom: oom_kill_process() need to check p is unkillable KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 15:07 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:33 ` [PATCH 5/9] oom: make oom_unkillable_task() helper function KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 15:10 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-16 11:34 ` [PATCH 6/9] oom: use same_thread_group instead comparing ->mm KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 12:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 15:15 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:34 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2010-06-16 11:35 ` [PATCH 8/9] oom: cleanup has_intersects_mems_allowed() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 15:22 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-16 11:36 ` [PATCH 9/9] oom: give the dying task a higher priority KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 15:31 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-16 19:54 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 14:41 ` [PATCH 1/9] oom: don't try to kill oom_unkillable child Minchan Kim
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
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=20100616203404.72E9.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox