From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC88E900086 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 20:42:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 740343EE0AE for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:42:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C62845DE59 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:42:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3130B45DE56 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:42:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB82E08005 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:42:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.134]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBBABE08001 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:42:21 +0900 (JST) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:35:49 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] forkbomb killer Message-Id: <20110414093549.80539260.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20110414092033.0809.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20110329101234.54d5d45a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110414092033.0809.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Minchan Kim , 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 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 last, > > >> 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 - kill all recent threads by Sysrq. The user can use Sysrq multiple times until forkbomb stops. Another(mine) is - kill all problematic in automatic. This adds some tracking costs but can be configurable. Thanks, -Kame -- 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