linux-kernel - Re: PIDs Controller Limit

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: <CAOviyagSDkNWY1X7d=nAhgqkOz2fE+ck+rS9Fn_hfMbCZHRyKw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 26 Sep 2015 09:11:02 +1000
From:	Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PIDs Controller Limit

> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 09:42:38AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
>> Does it make sense for the PIDs controller to allow a user to set a
>> limit of 0? Since we don't cancel attaches, a limit of 0 doesn't
>> affect anything (nothing stops attaches, and you need to have a
>> process in the PIDs cgroup in order for fork()s to be affected by the
>> limit). So I think that attempting to set pid.limit to 0 should return
>> an -EINVAL.
>
> I don't know.  Why does it matter?

Well, it might be confusing that a limit of `0` is not different from
a limit of `1`. Especially since someone might think that a limit of
`0` means "no processes AT ALL", which is wrong. Although, I guess
they should've just RTFM'd in that case.

-- 
Aleksa Sarai (cyphar)
www.cyphar.com
--
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/