linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Always print RLIMIT

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]

Date:   Wed, 07 Feb 2018 13:03:10 +0000
From:   David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:     Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@...cle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Always print RLIMIT_DATA warning



On Tue, 2018-02-06 at 20:48 +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 7:45 PM, David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > The documentation for ignore_rlimit_data says that it will print a warning
> > at first misuse. Yet it doesn't seem to do that. Fix the code to print
> > the warning even when we allow the process to continue.
>
> Ack. But I think this was a misprint in docs.
> Anyway, this knob is a kludge so we might warn once even if it is set.

Right. I think we definitely should. Otherwise, once set, there's no
real path to ever being able to *unset* it. Nothing well ever get
fixed.

> So, somebody still have problems with this change?
> I remember concerns about that "warn_once" isn't enough to detect
> what's going wrong.
> And probably we should invent  "warn_sometimes".

That was covered by "should probably also do what Linus suggested…":

> > ---
> > We should probably also do what Linus suggested in
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/16/585

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5213 bytes)