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: <20140401142947.927642a408d84df27d581e36@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 1 Apr 2014 14:29:47 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
Cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>, aswin@...com,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipc,shm: increase default size for shmmax

On Tue, 1 Apr 2014 17:12:50 -0400 KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 15:51 -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >> >> So, I personally like 0 byte per default.
> >> >
> >> > If by this you mean 0 bytes == unlimited, then I agree. It's less harsh
> >> > then removing it entirely. So instead of removing the limit we can just
> >> > set it by default to 0, and in newseg() if shm_ctlmax == 0 then we don't
> >> > return EINVAL if the passed size is great (obviously), otherwise, if the
> >> > user _explicitly_ set it via sysctl then we respect that. Andrew, do you
> >> > agree with this? If so I'll send a patch.
> >>
> >> Yes, my 0 bytes mean unlimited. I totally agree we shouldn't remove the knob
> >> entirely.
> >
> > Hmmm so 0 won't really work because it could be weirdly used to disable
> > shm altogether... we cannot go to some negative value either since we're
> > dealing with unsigned, and cutting the range in half could also hurt
> > users that set the limit above that. So I was thinking of simply setting
> > SHMMAX to ULONG_MAX and be done with it. Users can then set it manually
> > if they want a smaller value.
> >
> > Makes sense?
> 
> I don't think people use 0 for disabling. but ULONG_MAX make sense to me too.

Distros could have set it to [U]LONG_MAX in initscripts ten years ago
- less phone calls, happier customers.  And they could do so today.

But they haven't.   What are the risks of doing this?
--
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/