[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1404030155240.32122@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 01:57:52 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cmdline: Hide "debug" from /proc/cmdline
On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Which doesn't really protect you from tasks that do open()/write()/close()
> > cycle for /dev/kmsg write every 2ms though.
>
> I don't think we should try to protect against wilful bad behavior
> unless that is shown to be necessary. Yeah, if it turns out that
> systemd really does that just to mess with us, we'd need to extend it,
> but in the absence of proof to the contrary, maybe this simple
> attached patch works?
>
> TOTALLY UNTESTED. But it really isn't complex.
[ ... snip ... [
@@ -483,6 +484,8 @@ static ssize_t devkmsg_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
if (!user)
return -EBADF;
+ if (!___ratelimit(&user->rs, current->comm))
+ return 0;
I am admittedly rather new to this 'abuse the hell out of kernel
ringbuffer' thing, but shouldn't we better be limiting the
devkmsg_writev()?
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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