In <Pine.LNX.4.21.0003111843320.29123-100000@duckman.conectiva> Rik van Riel (riel@conectiva.com.br) wrote:
RR> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Khimenko Victor wrote:
>> Ok. This discussion is serveral YEARS old. So do not hold you
>> breath. There were lots and lots of discussion about this and
>> fewdifferent patches are floating around for ages (in 2.2.15pre
>> some OOM patches was tried; perhaps 2.2.15 will include one of
>> them). But ALL patches are designed to help in case of run-away
>> process and NOT protect against malicious user.
>>
>> P.S. Of course if you'll be able to cook up patch and solve this
>> outstanding problem still not solved after few years of
>> exercises by Linux's memory wizards you are welcome. Just don't
>> think it's so easy :-(
RR> On the contrary, putting together a solution to this
RR> problem is easy.
It's not so. SOME solution is easy enough. But is it right solution ?
This is unclear. To many peoples ANY solution where ANY process can
be killed is "not right" -- theonly proper solution will be one where
you'll get NULL from malloc when there are not enough memory.
RR> The problem has been that people don't understand the issues involved
RR> and start a flamewar as soon as a patch (re)surfaces.
Exactly.
RR> Also, making a solution that everybody agrees with seems
RR> to be impossible in this situation :)
Ideal solution will be: solution where
1) processes will be NEVER killed.
2) if there are not enough memory malloc just return NULL.
3) virtual memory is used effectively (that is almost 100% of memory+swap
can be used for "real data").
AFAIK you can more or less satisfy any two items but not all three at once...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 11 2000 - 23:18:36 EST