linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RSDL-mm 0/7] RSDL cpu scheduler for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2

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]

Message-Id: <200703131721.l2DHLDjV009580@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:21:13 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel@...e.fr>
Cc:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RSDL-mm 0/7] RSDL cpu scheduler for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:06:43 BST, Xavier Bestel said:
> Le mardi 13 mars 2007 à 05:49 +1100, Con Kolivas a écrit :
> > Again I think your test is not a valid testcase. Why use two threads for your 
> > encoding with one cpu? Is that what other dedicated desktop OSs would do?
> 
> One thought occured to me (shit happens, sometimes): as your scheduler
> is "strictly fair", won't that enable trivial DoS by just letting an
> user fork a multitude of CPU-intensive processes ?

Fork bombs are the reason that 'ulimit -u' exists. I don't see this scheduler
as being significantly more DoS'able via that route than previous schedulers.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped