linux-kernel - Re: [Patch 1/1] init: Provide a kernel start parameter to increase pid

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: <20100422125800.GA22285@sgi.com>
Date:	Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:58:00 -0500
From:	Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	John Stoffel <john@...ffel.org>, Hedi Berriche <hedi@....com>,
	Mike Travis <travis@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Robin Holt <holt@....com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch 1/1] init: Provide a kernel start parameter to increase
	pid_max v2

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:28:52AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Distros don't want to take a patch that adds a new boot param that is
> > not accepted upstream, otherwise they will be stuck forward porting it
> > from now until, well, forever :)
> 
> So for an obscure IA64 specific problem you want the upstream kernel to
> port it forward forever instead ?

FWIW, the problem is occurring on systems that use x86 processors - not
IA64.


> > 
> > As this solves a problem that people are having today, on the kernel.org
> > kernel, on a known machine, and we really don't know when the "reduce
> > the number of processes per cpu" work will be done, or if it really will
> > solve this issue, then why can't we take it now?  If the work does solve
> > the problem in the future, then we can take the command line option out,
> > and everyone is happy.
> > 
> > Sound reasonable?
> 
> No - to start with it would be far saner for everything involved if the
> 4096 processor minority fixed it for the moment in their arch code by
> doing something like
> 
> 	if (max_pids < PIDS_PER_CPU * num_cpus) {
> 		max_pids = ...
> 		printk(something informative)
> 	}
> 
> in their __init marked code.
> 
> Because when Tejun's stuff is in the patch can go away, and also if it's
> not sufficient then the patch above should keep it sane when they go to
> 32000 cpus or whatever is next.
> 
> Alan
--
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/