[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704282244130.25153@server.thyself>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:45:03 +0000 (GMT)
From: William Heimbigner <icxcnika@....tar.cc>
To: Lee Revell <rlrevell@...-job.com>
cc: tglx@...utronix.de, matthieu castet <castet.matthieu@...e.fr>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: High Resolution Timer DOS
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Lee Revell wrote:
> On 4/28/07, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>>
>> Well, it is not really a DoS. The rescheduling of the process is limited
>> by the scheduler and the available CPU time (depending on the number of
>> runnable tasks in the system).
>
> Shouldn't an unprivileged process be rate limited somehow to avoid
> flooding the machine with interrupts? We restrict nonroot users from
> setting the RTC interrupt rate higher than 64Hz for a similar reason
> (granted, this limit dates back to the 486 days and should probably be
> increased to 1024 Hz).
Isn't that what /etc/security/limits.conf is for?
Just limit the CPU usage.
> Root and SCHED_FIFO tasks could be exempt from rate limiting, to avoid
> the need to introduce a new rlimit which would take years for
> userspace to catch up to.
>
> Lee
William Heimbigner
icxcnika@....tar.cc
-
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