Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler

[Rik van Riel]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > i think the OOM algorithm should not kill processes that have
> > child-processes, it should first kill child-less 'leaves'. Killing a
> > process that has child processes likely results in unexpected behavior of
> > those child-processes. (and equals to effective killing of those
> > child-processes as well.)
> 
> I disagree - if we start adding these kinds of heuristics to it,
> it wil just be a way for people to try to confuse the OOM code.
> Imagine some bad guy that does 15 fork()'s and then tries to
> OOM...

Also, the only way to prevent bad things like this is userbeans,
the per-user resource quotas; until we have that there will ALWAYS
be ways to fool the OOM killer. It is just a stop-gap measure to
recover from a very bad situation...

regards,

Rik
--
"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
       -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000

http://www.conectiva.com/               http://www.surriel.com/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/