linux-kernel - Re: [resend][PATCH] Added PR_SET_PROCTITLE

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: <20091013083744.C747.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:03:22 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Timo Sirainen <tss@....fi>
Subject: Re: [resend][PATCH] Added PR_SET_PROCTITLE_AREA option for prctl()

> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 04:03:45 +0900 (JST)
> KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Start simple.  What's wrong with mutex_lock() on the reader and writer
> > > sides?  rwsems might be OK too.
> > > 
> > > In both cases we should think about whether persistent readers can
> > > block the writer excessively though.
> > 
> > I thought your mention seems reasonable. then I mesured various locking
> > performance.
> > 
> > 		no-contention	read-read contetion	read-write contention
> > w/o patch	4627 ms		 7575 ms		 N/A
> > mutex		5717 ms		33872 ms (!)		14793 ms
> > rw-semaphoe	6846 ms		10734 ms		36156 ms (!)
> > seqlock		4754 ms		 7558 ms		 9373 ms
> > 
> > Umm, seqlock is significantly better than other.
> 
> Sure, but even the worst case there is 1,000,000 operations in 34
> seconds (yes?). 33 microseconds for a /proc read while under a specific
> local DoS attack is OK!
> 
> If so then all implementations are acceptable and we should choose the
> simplest, most-obviously-correct one.

Hm, ok!

I had guessed you don't accept this slowness. but my guess was wrong.
I have no objection to use rw-semaphoe if you accept it. 


--
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/