[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080828202832.GF6750@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:28:33 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/59] Introduce credentials
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:45:03AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:19:44 +0100
> David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > We get a number of things:
> > > >
> > > > (1) Multiple credential changes all happen simultaneously (setresuid() for
> > > > example). The new set of credentials is committed with a single RCU
> > > > assignment.
> > >
> > > Makes sense - except for the question of bounding memory utilisation.
> >
> > Would it make sense to call synchronise_rcu() from commit_creds() or from
> > setuid()/setresuid()/setgroups()/etc. to make sure that some user process
> > doing:
> >
> > while (1)
> > alter_credentials();
> >
> > doesn't run the system out of memory by having loads of frees waiting in RCU's
> > queues because put_cred() uses call_rcu() to defer the destruction.
>
> I suspect you to - or every "nth" event - building up a small queue as
> would occur in normal usage probably isn't a problem.
Makes sense to me, given that we should not expect real-time determinism
out of alter_credentials(). ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
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