[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1hcsc5exe.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:21:01 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Dave Hansen <hansendc@...ibm.com>,
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: controlling mmap()'d vs read/write() pages
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> writes:
>> Would any of them work on a system on which every filesystem was on
>> ramfs, and there was no swap? If not then they are not memory attacks
>> but I/O attacks.
>>
>> I completely concede that you can DOS the system with I/O if that is
>> not limited as well.
>>
>> My point is that is not a memory problem but a disk I/O problem which is
>> much easier to and cheaper to solve. Disk I/O is fundamentally a slow
>> path which makes it hard to modify it in a way that negatively affects
>> system performance.
>>
>> I don't think with a memory RSS limit you can DOS the system in a way
>> that is purely about memory. You have to pick a different kind of DOS
>> attack.
>
> It can be done trivially without performing any IO or swap, yes.
Please give me a rough sketch of how to do so.
Or is this about DOS'ing the system by getting the kernel to allocate
a large number of data structures (struct file, struct inode, or the like)?
Eric
-
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