>
quoted text > the victim should not directly access hardware devices like Xorg server,
> because the hardware could be left in an unpredictable state, although
> user-application can set /proc/pid/oom_score_adj to protect it. so i think
> those processes should get 3% bonus for protection.
>
> Signed-off-by: Figo.zhang <figo1802@gmail.com>
I was surprised this issue is still there. This was pointed out half year
ago already :-/
quoted text > ---
> mm/oom_kill.c | 8 +++++---
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index 4029583..df6a9da 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -195,10 +195,12 @@ unsigned int oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> task_unlock(p);
>
> /*
> - * Root processes get 3% bonus, just like the __vm_enough_memory()
> - * implementation used by LSMs.
> + * Root and direct hardware access processes get 3% bonus, just like the
> + * __vm_enough_memory() implementation used by LSMs.
> */
This comment is incorrect. LSM is care only CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
quoted text > - if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> + if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ||
> + has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) ||
> + has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_RAWIO))
> points -= 30;
But yes. OOM need to care both CAP_SYS_RESOURCE and CAP_SYS_RAWIO.
Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
--
unsubscribe notice To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH]oom-kill: direct hardware access processes shou ... , KOSAKI Motohiro , (Tue Nov 9, 3:41 am)