From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Prevent OOM from killing init References: From: ebiederman@lnxi.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: 23 Mar 2001 16:26:31 -0700 In-Reply-To: Jonathan Morton's message of "Fri, 23 Mar 2001 19:45:26 +0000" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Jonathan Morton Cc: Martin Dalecki , Alan Cox , "James A. Sutherland" , Guest section DW , Rik van Riel , Patrick O'Rourke , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jonathan Morton writes: > >It would make much sense to make the oom killer > >leave not just root processes alone but processes belonging to a UID > >lower > >then a certain value as well (500). This would be: > > > >1. Easly managable by the admin. Just let oracle/www and analogous users > > have a UID lower then let's say 500. > > That sounds vaguely sensible. However, make it a "much less likely" rather > than an "impossible", otherwise we end up with an unkillable runaway root > process killing everything else in userland. > > I'm still in favour of a failing malloc(), and I'm currently reading a bit > of source and docs to figure out where this should be done and why it isn't > done now. So far I've found the overcommit_memory flag, which looks kinda > promising. Lookup mlock & mlock_all they will handle the single process case. Of course if you OOM you still have problems but that should make them much harder to trigger. Eric -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/