linux-kernel - Re: thread stacks and strict vm overcommit accounting

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:36:13 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, Dan Aloni <da-x@...atomic.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: thread stacks and strict vm overcommit accounting

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:33:43 +0000
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> > Stack RSS should certainly be included in Committed_AS,
> > but RLIMIT_STACK merely limits how big the stack vma may grow to:
> > at any moment the stack vma is probably very much smaller,
> > and only its current size is accounted in Committed_AS.
> 
> With a typical size as a fuzz factor preaccounted in later kernels.

Where's that done?

> > > > Is this the intended behaviour?
> > > 
> > > That sounds like a bug to me.
> > 
> > I'm suspecting it's an oddity rather than a bug.
> 
> It is intended behaviour.

Each instance of

main()
{
	sleep(100);
}

appears to increase Committed_AS by around 200kb.  But we've committed to
providing it with 8MB for stack.

How come this is correct?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/