linux-kernel - Re: [Devel] Re: BC: resource beancounters (v2)

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1156878916.16595.55.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:15:16 -0700
From:	Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Kir Kolyshkin <kir@...nvz.org>, devel@...nvz.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>,
	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: BC: resource beancounters (v2)

On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 20:06 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Maw, 2006-08-29 am 10:30 -0700, ysgrifennodd Rohit Seth:
> > On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 11:15 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Ar Llu, 2006-08-28 am 15:28 -0700, ysgrifennodd Rohit Seth:
> > > > Though if we have file/directory based accounting then shared pages
> > > > belonging to /usr/lib or /usr/bin can go to a common container.
> > > 
> > > So that one user can map all the spare libraries and config files and
> > > DoS the system by preventing people from accessing the libraries they do
> > > need ?
> > > 
> > 
> > Well, there is a risk whenever there is sharing across containers. The
> > point though is, give the choice to sysadmin to configure the platform
> > the way it is appropriate.
> 
> In other words your suggestion doesn't actually work for the real world
> cases like web serving.
> 

Containers are not going to solve all the problems particularly the
scenarios like when a machine is a web server and an odd user can log on
to the same machine and (w/o any ulimits) claim all the memory that is
present in the system.

Though it is quite possible to implement a combination of two (task and
fs based) policies in containers and sysadmin can set a preference of
each each container.  [this probably is another reason for having a per
page container pointer].

-rohit

-
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/