linux-kernel - Re: [RFD] Merge task counter into memcg

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: <CAFTL4hxXT+hXWEnKop84JQ8ieHX4e=otpHnXYxdxaPgsiZYCiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:10:54 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Daniel Walsh <dwalsh@...hat.com>,
	"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@...hat.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Merge task counter into memcg

2012/4/18 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 08:17:53AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello, Frederic.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 06:59:27PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> > I want:
>> >
>> > a) to prevent the forkbomb from going far enough to DDOS the machine
>> > b) to be able to kill that forkbomb once detected, in one go without race
>> > against concurrent forks.
>> >
>> > I think a) can work just fine with kernel stack limiting. I also need
>> > to be notified about the fact we reached the limit. And b) should
>> > be feasible with the help of the cgroup freezer.
>>
>> kmem allocation fail after reaching the limit which in turn should
>> fail task creation.  Isn't that the same effect as the task_counter as
>> implemented?
>
> That's it.
>
>>
>> > > Is there anything for which you need to know exactly the number of
>> > > processes?
>> >
>> > No that's really about prevent/kill forkbomb as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>> Hmm... so, accounting overhead aside, if the only purpose is
>> preventing the whole machine being brought down by a fork bomb, kmem
>> limiting is enough, right?
>
> I think so yeah.

But this needs to be a well defined kind of kmem I think. Relying on
kernel memory
alone is too general to just protect against forkbombs. Kernel stack,
OTOH, should be
a good criteria.

But now I'm worrying, do you think this kmem.kernel_stack limitation
is going to be useful
for other kind of usecase?
--
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/