linux-kernel - Re: [RFC -mm 0/6] sysv ipc: scale msgmnb with the number of cpus

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <48621A01.8090803@bull.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:12:17 +0200
From:	Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>
To:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Cc:	Solofo.Ramangalahy@...l.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
	Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>,
	Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC -mm 0/6] sysv ipc: scale msgmnb with the number of cpus

Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Solofo.Ramangalahy@...l.net wrote:
> 
>> Humm... now this make me think that you did not change the MSGMNB
>> value when you changed MSGMNI and MSGMAX.
>> Maybe that was on purpose?
>>
>>   
> 
> I was afraid that it might break user space applications that queue a 
> few kb of messages.
> That's also the reason for
> 
>>                 if (msgsz + msq->q_cbytes <= msq->q_qbytes &&
>>                                 1 + msq->q_qnum <= msq->q_qbytes) {
>>                         break;
>>                 }
> 
> It's possible to send 0-byte messages even if the  message queue is full 
> [except that you can't send more than MSGMNB messages].
> 

Manfred,

If I'm not missign anything when reading the code, sending up to MSGMNB 
0-bytes messages would make us enqueue MSGMNB msg_msg structures (this 
is in the worst case where no receiver is waiting for those messages).
==> MSGMNB * 24 bytes (or 48 bytes in 64-bit mode))
==> 384 KB with current MSGMNB value (16K).

But 1,5 MB with a MSGMNB=64K

Even if it is a worst case, it should be considered and may be we should 
refine the formula Solofo has proposed if you think this is not a 
reasonable value.
May be add a dependency on the memory size?

Regards,
Nadia
--
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/