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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <m1vd5ll2hl.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date:	Fri, 01 Oct 2010 20:04:06 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: max_user_watches overflows on 16TB system.

Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org> writes:

> 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.

Which suggests that we need to force the boot time calculation to not
exceed 2B.

>From the sysctl interface perspective now that all of it is exported as
ascii strings I don't see a problem there.

Eric
--
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/