[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPXgP117Wkgvf1kDukjWt9yOye8xArpyX29xx36NT++s8TS5Rw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:27:36 +0100
From: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@....org>,
Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tmpfs: support user quotas
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 14:58, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>> Right, rlimit approach guarantees a simple way of dealing with users
>> across all tmpfs instances.
>
> Which is almost certainly not what you want to happen. Think about direct
> rendering.
>
> For simple stuff tmpfs already supports size/nr_blocks/nr_inodes mount
> options so you can mount private resource constrained tmpfs objects
> already without kernel changes. No rlimit hacks needed - and rlimit is
> the wrong API anyway.
What part of the message did you read? This is about _per_user_
limits, not global limits!
Any untrusted user can fill /dev/shm today and DOS many services that
way on any machine out there. Same for /tmp when it's a tmpfs, or
/run/user. This is an absolutely unacceptable state and needs fixing.
I don't care about which interface it is, if someting else fits
better, let's discuss that, but it has surely absolutely noting to do
with size/nr_blocks/nr_inodes.
Kay
--
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