linux-kernel - Re: max_user_watches overflows on 16TB system.

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1010011335400.2305@ubuntu>
Date:	Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>
cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: max_user_watches overflows on 16TB system.

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Robin Holt wrote:

> 
> Following a boot of a 16TB system, we noticed that the max_user_watches
> sysctl was negative.  Is there any downside to converting that to a
> static long and handling the fallout from the change?  I believe that
> fallout includes changing the definition of epoll_watches over to an
> atomic_long_t as well.
> 
> Alternatively should we just limit max_user_watches to INT_MAX?

2B watches looks an acceptable limit to me, at least for now.
Nobody complained about not having enough of them so far.


- Davide


--
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/