linux-kernel - Re: Local DoS through write heavy I/O on CFQ & Deadline

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: <50807F26.5070106@genband.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:13:58 -0600
From:	Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC:	Alex Bligh <alex@...x.org.uk>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Local DoS through write heavy I/O on CFQ & Deadline

On 10/18/2012 03:28 PM, Jan Kara wrote:

>    Yeah, ionice has its limitations. The problem is that all buffered
> writes happen just into memory (so completely independently of ionice
> settings). Subsequent writing of dirty memory to disk happens using flusher
> thread which is a kernel process and it doesn't know anything about IO
> priority set for task which created the file. If you wrote the file with
> oflag=direct or oflag=sync you would see that ionice works as expected.

Has anyone looked at storing the ionice value with the buffered write 
request such that the actual writes to disk could be sorted by priority 
and done with the ionice level of the original caller?

Chris
--
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/