linux-kernel - Re: [patch 016/104] epoll: introduce resource usage limits

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090123170631.GB11566@suse.de>
Date:	Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:06:31 -0800
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	Bron Gondwana <brong@...tmail.fm>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	stable@...nel.org, Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...uxtx.org>,
	Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@....linux.org.uk>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Chuck Wolber <chuckw@...ntumlinux.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 016/104] epoll: introduce resource usage limits

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 08:47:45PM +1100, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:16 -0800, "Greg KH" <gregkh@...e.de> wrote:
> > > This is a kvm virtual machine running on a reasonably beefy external box, but
> > > with 2Gb RAM allocated to the mx instance because that's all kvm would let me
> > > use last time I checked.  We're using KVM so the local copy of the database is
> > > a little further away from the "internet facing side" and so we can build each
> > > machine with our standard FAI setup.
> > 
> > I would suggest just changing this default value then, it's a simple
> > userspace configuration item, and for your boxes, it sounds like a
> > larger value would be more suitable.
> 
> Yes - I've pushed it up to 4096 now.  Should be plenty!
> 
> I guess Postfix is a bit of an odd case here.   It runs lots of processes, yet
> uses epoll within many of them as well - sort of a historical design in some ways,
> but also to enforce maximum privilege separation with many of the daemons able to
> be run under chroot with limited capabilities.
> 
> So I guess I have a few questions left:
> 
> 1) is this value ever supposed to be hit in practice by non-malicious software?
>    If not, it appears 128 is too low.

It does appear a bit low.  What looks to you like a good value to use as
a default?

> 2) if we're going to stick with 128, is there any way to query the kernel as to how
>    close to the limit it's getting?  As an example, our system checks poll
>    /proc/sys/fs/file-max every 2 minutes, and warn us if its getting "full".

Good idea, we should report this somewhere for the very reasons you
suggest.  Can you write up a patch to do this?  If not, I'll see what I
can do.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/