[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4536090.43ZsV6LvYe@merkaba>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2018 18:04:59 +0100
From: Martin Steigerwald <martin@...htvoll.de>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, rppt@...ux.ibm.com,
Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"Dennis Zhou (Facebook)" <dennisszhou@...il.com>,
Prashant Dhamdhere <pdhamdhe@...hat.com>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Document /proc/pid PID reuse behavior
Michal Hocko - 07.11.18, 17:00:
> > > otherwise anybody could simply DoS the system
> > > by consuming all available pids.
> >
> > People can do that today using the instrument of terror widely known
> > as fork(2). The only thing standing between fork(2) and a full
> > process table is RLIMIT_NPROC.
>
> not really. If you really do care about pid space depletion then you
> should use pid cgroup controller.
Its not quite on-topic, but I am curious now: AFAIK PID limit is 16
bits. Right? Could it be raised to 32 bits? I bet it would be a major
change throughout different parts of the kernel.
16 bits sound a bit low these days, not only for PIDs, but also for
connections / ports.
--
Martin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists