[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45252A26.3050609@sw.ru>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:52:06 +0400
From: Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, xemul@...nvz.org,
Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, Srivatsa <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>, haveblue@...ibm.com
Subject: [PATCH 2/10] BC: kconfig
Add kernel/bc/Kconfig file with BC options and
include it into arch Kconfigs
Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Signed-off-by: Kirill Korotaev <dev@...nvz.org>
---
init/Kconfig | 4 ++++
kernel/bc/Kconfig | 16 ++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
--- ./init/Kconfig.bc_kconfig 2006-10-05 11:42:43.000000000 +0400
+++ ./init/Kconfig 2006-10-05 11:43:56.000000000 +0400
@@ -564,6 +564,10 @@ config STOP_MACHINE
Need stop_machine() primitive.
endmenu
+menu "Beancounters"
+source "kernel/bc/Kconfig"
+endmenu
+
menu "Block layer"
source "block/Kconfig"
endmenu
--- /dev/null 2006-07-18 14:52:43.075228448 +0400
+++ ./kernel/bc/Kconfig 2006-10-05 11:43:56.000000000 +0400
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+config BEANCOUNTERS
+ bool "Enable resource accounting/control"
+ default n
+ help
+ When Y this option provides accounting and allows configuring
+ limits for user's consumption of exhaustible system resources.
+ The most important resource controlled by this patch is unswappable
+ memory (either mlock'ed or used by internal kernel structures and
+ buffers). The main goal of this patch is to protect processes
+ from running short of important resources because of accidental
+ misbehavior of processes or malicious activity aiming to ``kill''
+ the system. It's worth mentioning that resource limits configured
+ by setrlimit(2) do not give an acceptable level of protection
+ because they cover only a small fraction of resources and work on a
+ per-process basis. Per-process accounting doesn't prevent malicious
+ users from spawning a lot of resource-consuming processes.
-
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