Re: [PATCH]oom-kill: direct hardware access processes should get bonus

[KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>]

> 
> the victim should not directly access hardware devices like Xorg server,
> because the hardware could be left in an unpredictable state, although 
> user-application can set /proc/pid/oom_score_adj to protect it. so i think
> those processes should get 3% bonus for protection.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Figo.zhang <figo1802@gmail.com>

I was surprised this issue is still there. This was pointed out half year 
ago already :-/


> ---
> mm/oom_kill.c |    8 +++++---
>  1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index 4029583..df6a9da 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -195,10 +195,12 @@ unsigned int oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
>  	task_unlock(p);
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * Root processes get 3% bonus, just like the __vm_enough_memory()
> -	 * implementation used by LSMs.
> +	 * Root and direct hardware access processes get 3% bonus, just like the
> +	 * __vm_enough_memory() implementation used by LSMs.
>  	 */

This comment is incorrect. LSM is care only CAP_SYS_ADMIN.

> -	if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> +	if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ||
> +	    has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) ||
> +	    has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_RAWIO))
>  		points -= 30;

But yes. OOM need to care both CAP_SYS_RESOURCE and CAP_SYS_RAWIO.

Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>




--
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 policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>