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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <560A2C0E.40007@kyup.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:13:34 +0300
From:	Nikolay Borisov <kernel@...p.com>
To:	Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PIDs Controller Limit



On 09/26/2015 02:11 AM, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
>> 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.

I personally would have parsed a value of 0 as "unlimited"

--
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/