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: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 01:31:44 +0000 From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Dan Aloni <da-x@...atomic.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: thread stacks and strict vm overcommit accounting > > > With a typical size as a fuzz factor preaccounted in later kernels. > > > > Where's that done? > > I don't know what Alan is referring to there. fs/exec.c - we add 20 pages to the stack vma size initially. > We've no more committed to providing each instance with 8MB of stack, > than we've committed to providing each instance with RLIMIT_AS of > address space. The rlimits are limits, not commitments, surely? Yes, its just that the C programming language is utterly and mindbogglingly broken when it comes to resource exhaustion for the stack. Alan - 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