linux-kernel - Re: [discuss] memrlimit - potential applications that can use

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: <1219250334.8960.30.camel@nimitz>
Date:	Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:38:54 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	righiandr@...rs.sourceforge.net
Cc:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Marco Sbrighi <m.sbrighi@...eca.it>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [discuss] memrlimit - potential applications that can use

On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 15:25 +0200, righi.andrea@...il.com wrote:
> Memory overcommit protection, instead, is a way to *prevent* OOM
> conditions (problem 1).

I completely disagree. :)

Think of all the work Eric Biederman did on pid namespaces.  One of his
motivations was to keep /proc from being able to pin task structs.  That
is one great example of a way a process can pin lots of memory without
mapping it, and overcommit has no effect on this!

Eric had a couple of other good examples, but I think task structs were
the biggest.

As I said to Balbir, there probably are some large-scale solutions to
this: things like beancounters.  

-- 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/