[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87inzdju98.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:03:47 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, security@...ian.org,
"security\@kernel.org" <security@...nel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"security\@ubuntu.com \>\> security" <security@...ntu.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@...el32.net>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/16] vfs: Implement mount_super_once
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> writes:
>>- Support for reserving ptys for the system devpts instance using
>> /proc/sys/kernel/pty/reserve needs to be removed.
>>
>>Eric
>
> pty capping should probably be a devpts mount option
There is a max option so pty capping is a per devpts option.
> , and perhaps a
> sufficiently privileged user could be allowed to set another mount
> option to allow that instance to dip into the reserved pool or exempt
> it completely from the global limit as set in sysctl.
I agree that we could keep the reserved pool, and add a new way to
access it. However no piece of existing userspace could use it. So the
simplest thing to do (unless something actually breaks), is to just
remove the reserve pool.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists