linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 0/2] remap_file

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: <CA+55aFz9Yo7OC03tKt2wsdd8cDi00yxvMwszrsOsx0ZVEh6zqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 9 May 2014 08:14:08 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Armin Rigo <arigo@...es.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/2] remap_file_pages() decommission

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hm. I'm confused here. Do we have any limit forced per-user?

Sure we do. See "struct user_struct". We limit max number of
processes, open files, signals etc.

> I only see things like rlimits which are copied from parrent.
> Is it what you want?

No, rlimits are per process (although in some cases what they limit
are counted per user despite the _limits_ of those resources then
being settable per thread).

So I was just thinking that if we raise the per-mm default limits,
maybe we should add a global per-user limit to make it harder for a
user to use tons and toms of vma's.

          Linus
--
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/