Re: [PATCH] strict VM overcommit for stock 2.4

[Szakacsits Szabolcs]

On 18 Jul 2002, Robert Love wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 09:36, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
>
> > This is what I would do first [make sure you don't hit any resource,
> > malloc, kernel memory mapping, etc limits -- this is a simulation that
> > must eat all available memory continually]:
> > main(){void *x;while(1)if(x=malloc(4096))memset(x,666,4096);}
> >
> > When the above used up all the memory try to ssh/login to the box as
> > root and clean up the mess. Can you do it?
>
> - with strict overcommit and the "allocations must meet backing store"
> rule (policy #3) the above can never use all physical memory

So you can't do it: if this user can't get more memory neither root.

> - if your point is that a rogue user can use all of the systems memory,
> then you need per-user resource accounting.

I explicitely mentioned above, "make sure you don't hit any resource
... limit".

> - the point of this patch is to not use MORE memory than the system
> has.

I had my [not finished] own non-overcommit patch based on Eduardo
Horvath's from 2000, no need to explain what it means :) Actually the
basics of your patch looks very similar to Eduardo's one.

> I say nothing else except that I am trying to avoid OOM and push
> the allocation failures into the allocations themselves.  Assuming the
> accounting is correct (and it seems to be) then Alan and I have
> succeeded.

And my point (you asked for comments) was that, this is only (the
harder) part of the solution making Linux a more reliable (no OOM
killing *and* root always has the control) and cost effective platform
(no need for occasionally very complex and continuous resource limit
setup/adjusting, especially for inexpert home/etc users).

	Szaka