On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:20:41 +0900 (JST) KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, Minchan, Kamezawa-san, > > > >> So whenever user push sysrq, older tasks would be killed and at last, > > >> root forkbomb task would be killed. > > >> > > > > > > Maybe good for a single user system and it can send Sysrq. > > > But I myself not very excited with this new feature becasuse I need to > > > run to push Sysrq .... > > > > > > Please do as you like, I think the idea itself is interesting. > > > But I love some automatic ones. I do other jobs. > > > > Okay. Thanks for the comment, Kame. > > > > I hope Andrew or someone gives feedback forkbomb problem itself before > > diving into this. > > May I ask current status of this thread? I'm unhappy if our kernel keep > to have forkbomb weakness. ;) I've stopped updating but can restart at any time. (And I found a bug ;) > Can we consider to take either or both idea? > I think yes, both idea can be used. One idea is - kill all recent threads by Sysrq. The user can use Sysrq multiple times until forkbomb stops. Another(mine) is - kill all problematic in automatic. This adds some tracking costs but can be configurable. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>