[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1174062660.8184.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:31:00 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <hansendc@...ibm.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, menage@...gle.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, xemul@...ru
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] RSS controller core
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 18:55 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> To create a DOS attack.
>
> - Allocate some memory you know your victim will want in the future,
> (shared libraries and the like).
> - Wait until your victim is using the memory you allocated.
> - Terminate your memory resource group.
> - Victim is pushed over memory limits by your exiting.
> - Victim can no longer allocate memory
> - Victim dies
>
> It's not quite that easy unless your victim calls mlockall(MCL_FUTURE),
> but the potential is clearly there.
>
> Am I missing something? Or is this fundamental to any first touch scenario?
>
> I just know I have problems with first touch because it is darn hard to
> reason about.
I think it's fundamental to any case where two containers share the use
of the page, but either one _can_ be charged but does not receive a
_full_ charge for it.
I don't think it's uniquely associated with first-touch schemes.
The software zones approach where there would be a set of "shared" zones
would not have this problem, because any sharing would have to occur on
data on which neither one was being charged.
http://linux-mm.org/SoftwareZones
-- Dave
-
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