|
Message-ID: <20110701120453.GA28008@elte.hu> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 14:04:53 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com> Cc: solar@...nwall.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...e.fr>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] ipc: introduce shm_rmid_forced sysctl * Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 13:25 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Furthermore, if testing shows that this is not actually breaking > > anything in a serious way we could also in theory simplify the patch > > and just make this the default behavior with no runtime ability to > > switch it off. > > I'm afraid it's impossible. From -ow readme: > > "Of course, this breaks the way things are defined, so some > applications might stop working. In particular, expect most > commercial databases to break. Apache and PostgreSQL are known to > work, though. :-)" > > http://www.openwall.com/linux/README.shtml > > But as it was written in days of Linux 2.4.x, the situation could > have changed. A desktop system seems to work. As we really prefer working systems over non-working ones (and lots of unattached shm segments can clearly result in a non-working system) we can only accept the "this will break stuff" argument if it's *demonstrated* to break stuff and if the failure scenario is carefully described in the commit. It would take a serious breakage to override a "system locks up swapping itself to death" failure scenario. Thanks, Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.