linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] VM: per-user overcommit policy

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: <20070507212322.6d60210b@the-village.bc.nu>
Date:	Mon, 7 May 2007 21:23:22 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	righiandr@...rs.sourceforge.net
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] VM: per-user overcommit policy

> - allow uid=1001 and uid=1002 (common users) to allocate memory only if the
>   total committed space is below the 50% of the physical RAM + the size of
>   swap:
> root@...t # echo 1001:2:50 > /proc/overcommit_uid
> root@...t # echo 1002:2:50 > /proc/overcommit_uid

There are some fundamental problems with this model - the moment you mix
strict overcommit with anything else it ceases to be a strict overcommit
and you might as well use existing overcommit rules for most stuff

The other thing you are sort of faking is per user resource management -
which is a subset of per group of users resource management which is
useful - eg "students can't hog the machine"

I don't see that this is the right approach compared with the container
work and openvz work that is currently active and far more flexible.

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/