linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	caiqian@redhat.com, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] oom: use euid instead of CAP_SYS_ADMIN for protection root process
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:57:38 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1106221552310.11759@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E01C809.9020508@jp.fujitsu.com>

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

> Recently, many userland daemon prefer to use libcap-ng and drop
> all privilege just after startup. Because of (1) Almost privilege
> are necessary only when special file open, and aren't necessary
> read and write. (2) In general, privilege dropping brings better
> protection from exploit when bugs are found in the daemon.
> 

You could also say that dropping the capability drops the bonus it is 
given in the oom killer.  We've never promised any benefit in the oom 
killer badness scoring without the capability.

> But, it makes suboptimal oom-killer behavior. CAI Qian reported
> oom killer killed some important daemon at first on his fedora
> like distro. Because they've lost CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
> 

I disagree that we should be identifying "important daemons" by tying it 
the effective uid of the process and thus making some sort of inference 
because a thread was forked by root.  I think it is more clear to tie that 
to an actual capability that is present, such as CAP_SYS_ADMIN, or suggest 
that the user give the "important daemon" it's own bonus by tuning 
/proc/pid/oom_score_adj.

We already know that the kernel will not be able to identify critical 
processes perfectly, that's an assumption that we can live with.  We must 
rely on userspace to influence that decision by using the tunable.

If this patch were merged, I could easily imagine an argument in the 
reverse that would just simply revert it: it would be very easy to say 
that CAP_SYS_ADMIN has always given this bonus in recent memory so 
changing it would be a regression over the previous behavior and/or that 
giving the capability to a thread as it runs implies that it should have 
the bonus when the euid may not be 0.

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2011-06-22 22:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-06-22 10:45 [PATCH v3 0/6] Fix oom killer doesn't work at all if system have > gigabytes memory (aka CAI founded issue) KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-06-22 10:46 ` [PATCH 1/6] oom: use euid instead of CAP_SYS_ADMIN for protection root process KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-06-22 22:57   ` David Rientjes [this message]
2011-06-22 10:47 ` [PATCH 2/6] oom: improve dump_tasks() show items KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-06-22 22:59   ` David Rientjes
2011-06-22 10:47 ` [PATCH 3/6] oom: kill younger process first KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-06-22 23:01   ` David Rientjes
2011-06-22 10:48 ` [PATCH 4/6] oom: oom-killer don't use proportion of system-ram internally KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-06-22 23:16   ` David Rientjes
2011-06-22 10:48 ` [PATCH 5/6] oom: don't kill random process KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-06-22 23:22   ` David Rientjes
2011-06-22 10:49 ` [PATCH 6/6] oom: merge oom_kill_process() with oom_kill_task() 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=alpine.DEB.2.00.1106221552310.11759@chino.kir.corp.google.com \
    --to=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=caiqian@redhat.com \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.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