linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 3/5] ipc: Allow boot time extension of IPCMNI from 32k to 2M

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:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 13:43:13 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/5] ipc: Allow boot time extension of IPCMNI from 32k
 to 2M

On 10/02/2018 12:32 PM, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Hello together,
>
> On 8/18/18 3:15 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 08/17/2018 12:45 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>> Cc'ing Manfred.
>>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>
>>>> The maximum number of unique System V IPC identifiers was limited to
>>>> 32k.  That limit should be big enough for most use cases.
>>>>
>>>> However, there are some users out there requesting for more. To
>>>> satisfy
>>>> the need of those users, a new boot time kernel option "ipcmni_extend"
>>>> is added to extend the IPCMNI value to 2M. This is a 64X increase
>>>> which
>>>> hopefully is big enough for them.
>>> Could you please provide more info on the need of these users and how
>>> you came up with this new value (which just seems quite arbitrary)?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Davidlohr
>> Red Hat has a customer that is migrating from Solaris to Linux. Some of
>> their applications just happen to use more than 32k of shared memory
>> segments. I think Solaris allows up to 16M unique ID.
>>
>> Yes, the amount of increase is a bit arbitrary. I was trying to balance
>> how many bits should be left for sequence number. Maybe I should just
>> take 8 more bits for ID and leave 8 bits for sequence number to match
>> Solaris.
>
> - I think we should use the same numbers as Solaris.
> Otherwise we later have to touch it again.

As said in my patch, it is a trade-off between # of uniq identifiers
versus the chance of id reuse. I don't have an objection to increase it
further, but I don't see the customers to really need such a large value.

>
> - What is the performance when using shmget() with already 10M
> segments present?

I am not sure the performance impact as I had not measure it myself. The
shmget() function is considered in slowpath. We are generally less
concern about its performance than other code paths that are in a
performance critical path.

>
> - I like the new logic for updating the sequence counter.
>
> Is there a reason why you only enable it for extended mode?

I tried not to disturb the existing logic for backward compatibility
concern. I don't mind switching it all over to use the new "deleted"
approach if other people have no objection.

Cheers,
Longman

> You create a rarely used codepath, and I don't understand what speaks
> against switching to the 'deleted' approach for all systems.
>
>
> -- 
>
>     Manfred
>