From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f197.google.com (mail-wr0-f197.google.com [209.85.128.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCD4E6B0003 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:24:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr0-f197.google.com with SMTP id a63so6335747wrc.15 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:24:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from a3.inai.de (a3.inai.de. [2a01:4f8:162:73ab::58c6:b4a1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 132si7999316wmg.109.2018.01.29.10.24.01 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:24:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 19:24:01 +0100 (CET) From: Jan Engelhardt Subject: Re: [netfilter-core] kernel panic: Out of memory and no killable processes... (2) In-Reply-To: <20180129165722.GF5906@breakpoint.cc> Message-ID: References: <001a1144b0caee2e8c0563d9de0a@google.com> <201801290020.w0T0KK8V015938@www262.sakura.ne.jp> <20180129072357.GD5906@breakpoint.cc> <20180129082649.sysf57wlp7i7ltb2@node.shutemov.name> <20180129165722.GF5906@breakpoint.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Florian Westphal Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Tetsuo Handa , davem@davemloft.net, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, aarcange@redhat.com, yang.s@alibaba-inc.com, mhocko@suse.com, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, rientjes@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, guro@fb.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com On Monday 2018-01-29 17:57, Florian Westphal wrote: >> > > vmalloc() once became killable by commit 5d17a73a2ebeb8d1 ("vmalloc: back >> > > off when the current task is killed") but then became unkillable by commit >> > > b8c8a338f75e052d ("Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is >> > > killed""). Therefore, we can't handle this problem from MM side. >> > > Please consider adding some limit from networking side. >> > >> > I don't know what "some limit" would be. I would prefer if there was >> > a way to supress OOM Killer in first place so we can just -ENOMEM user. >> >> Just supressing OOM kill is a bad idea. We still leave a way to allocate >> arbitrary large buffer in kernel. At the very least, mm could limit that kind of "arbitrary". If the machine has x GB (swap included) and the admin tries to make the kernel allocate space for an x GB ruleset, no way is it going to be satisfiable _even with OOM_. >I think we should try to allocate whatever amount of memory is needed >for the given xtables ruleset, given that is what admin requested us to do. -- 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: email@kvack.org