Messages in this thread | | | From | "Khimenko Victor" <> | Date | Sun, 12 Mar 2000 06:45:01 +0300 (MSK) | Subject | Re: Some questions about linux kernel. |
| |
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/
| |