On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 06:47:10PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: > Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm not sure I agree with that. Generally speaking it seems like the right > > thing to do, if you want to avoid filling logs with warnings, but this is the > > sort of error that is going to be accompanied by severe service interruption. > > I'd rather see a reason behind that in the logs, than just have it occur > > silently. > > Its not silent -- the setsockopt call will fail and userspace should > display an error. > Thats not true. If the OOM succedes in freeing enough memory to fulfill the request the setsockopt may complete without error, you're just left with a killed process...somewhere. Thats seems a bit dodgy to me Not saying it has to be a full stack trace, but some log annotation that shows the oom killer got invoked seems called for here Neil > So I agree with Marcelo, lets suppress the oom spew here. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
