| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:51:48 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, maxk@...lcomm.com, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] tun: vringfd xmit support. > On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 00:41:43 +1000 Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote: > On Saturday 19 April 2008 05:06:34 Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 01:15:15 +1000 Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> > wrote: > > > > What is the maximum numbet of pages which an unpriviliged user can > > > > concurrently pin with this code? > > > > > > Since only root can open the tun device, it's currently OK. The old code > > > kmalloced and copied: is there some mm-fu reason why pinning userspace > > > memory is worse? > > > > We generally try to avoid it - it allows users to dos the box. > > My question is: is pinning a page worse than allocating a (kernel) page in > some way? > I guess pinning is not as bad as straight-out allocating. Pinning is limited to the size of the program's VM. Pinning it at least pining something which is accounted and is exposed to admin tools. But they're both pretty similar in effect and risk. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists