Re: [RFC] New ideas for the OOM handler

2000-10-13 Thread David Feuer
Long-running processes are not always important. If I'm running an RC5 cracker or similar program, I want that killed right after the fork bomb. While it's generally bad to interrupt simulations etc., it is perfectly fine to do so if they are properly designed so they save their state as the

Re: [RFC] New ideas for the OOM handler

2000-10-10 Thread lamont
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Byron Stanoszek wrote: > > it also might be good to have options to kill anything connected to a pty > > first, and to not kill anything attatched to the console. obviously these > > leave ways for admins to shoot themselves in the foot, but they could be > > useful. > > I _h

Re: [RFC] New ideas for the OOM handler

2000-10-09 Thread Byron Stanoszek
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > how about registering the full path (or inode number of the executable?), > the owner, and an optional high water mark of memory consumption, over > which the process is considered to be leaking memory and gets added to the > algorithm of processes to

Re: [RFC] New ideas for the OOM handler

2000-10-09 Thread lamont
how about registering the full path (or inode number of the executable?), the owner, and an optional high water mark of memory consumption, over which the process is considered to be leaking memory and gets added to the algorithm of processes to kill? this is because while normally i want to ign

Re: [RFC] New ideas for the OOM handler

2000-10-09 Thread Byron Stanoszek
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Matthew Dharm wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 09:25:38PM -0400, Byron Stanoszek wrote: > > echo "init" > /proc/sys/oom-ignore > > echo "httpd" >> /proc/sys/oom-ignore > > echo "parallel-fft" >> /proc/sys/oom-ignore > > etc... > > I'd be concerned with the security implicati

Re: [RFC] New ideas for the OOM handler

2000-10-09 Thread Matthew Dharm
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 09:25:38PM -0400, Byron Stanoszek wrote: > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Jochen Striepe wrote: > > What about a user-defined list of "wishes"? The administrator should be > > enabled to enforce that specific processes are to be terminated only as a > > last resource (syslogd), or th

Re: [RFC] New ideas for the OOM handler

2000-10-09 Thread Byron Stanoszek
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Jochen Striepe wrote: > Hi, a question regarding the OOM process killer... > > Hmm, sometimes daemon-like processes (e.g. web servers) only need root > privileges to open a network port<1024 - you may start them as non-root > if they do not need such a privileged port. Might

[RFC] New ideas for the OOM handler

2000-10-09 Thread Byron Stanoszek
What I'd personally like to see in the OOM should cover the following scenarios, theoretically: 1. User does a malloc() bomb. This should be caught instantly and killed when there is no memory left to allocate. This covers tons of low-sized mallocs() as well as a timed delay infinite loo