linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ipc,shm: increase default size for shmmax

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: <20140401122623.30f9d4e8106031f714e01ebb@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 1 Apr 2014 12:26:23 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
Cc:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>, aswin@...com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipc,shm: increase default size for shmmax

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 10:01:39 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com> wrote:

> > > EINVAL A new segment was to be created and size < SHMMIN or size >
> > > SHMMAX, or no new segment was to be created, a segment with given key
> > > existed, but size is greater than the size of that segment.
> > 
> > So their system will act as if they had set SHMMAX=enormous.  What
> > problems could that cause?
> 
> So, just like any sysctl configurable, only privileged users can change
> this value. If we remove this option, users can theoretically create
> huge segments, thus ignoring any custom limit previously set. This is
> what I fear.

What's wrong with that?  Waht are we actually ptoecting the system
from?  tmpfs exhaustion?

> Think of it kind of like mlock's rlimit. And for that
> matter, why does sysctl exist at all, the same would go for the rest of
> the limits.

These things exist to protect the system from intentional or accidental
service denials.  What are the service denials in this case?

> > Look.  The 32M thing is causing problems.  Arbitrarily increasing the
> > arbitrary 32M to an arbitrary 128M won't fix anything - we still have
> > the problem.  Think bigger, please: how can we make this problem go
> > away for ever?
> 
> That's the thing, I don't think we can make it go away without breaking
> userspace.

Still waiting for details!

> I'm not saying that my 4x increase is the correct value, I
> don't think any default value is really correct, as with any other
> hardcoded limits there are pros and cons. That's really why we give
> users the option to change it to the "correct" one via sysctl. All I'm
> saying is that 32mb is just too small for default in today's systems,
> and increasing it is just making a bad situation a tiny bit better.

Let's understand what's preventing us from making it a great deal better.
--
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/