[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090509191818.3AD8.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 19:20:09 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Elladan <elladan@...imo.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] vmscan: make mapped executable pages the first class citizen
> On Thu, 7 May 2009, Elladan wrote:
>
> > > Nobody (except you) is proposing that we completely disable
> > > the eviction of executable pages. I believe that your idea
> > > could easily lead to a denial of service attack, with a user
> > > creating a very large executable file and mmaping it.
>
> The amount of mlockable pages is limited via ulimit. We can already make
> the pages unreclaimable through mlock().
>
> > I don't know of any distro that applies default ulimits, so desktops are
> > already susceptible to the far more trivial "call malloc a lot" or "fork bomb"
> > attacks. Plus, ulimits don't help, since they only apply per process - you'd
> > need a default mem cgroup before this mattered, I think.
>
> The point remains that the proposed patch does not solve the general
> problem that we encounter with exec pages of critical components of the
> user interface being evicted from memory.
>
> Do we have test data that shows a benefit? The description is minimal. Rik
> claimed on IRC that tests have been done. If so then the patch description
> should include the tests. Which loads benefit from this patch?
>
> A significant change to the reclaim algorithm also needs to
> have a clear description of the effects on reclaim behavior which is also
> lacking.
btw,
This is very good news to me.
Recently I've taked sevaral time for reproducing this issue. but
I have no luck. I'm interesting its test-case.
Thanks.
--
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