linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] Document /proc/pid PID reuse behavior

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20181108132512.GZ27423@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 8 Nov 2018 14:25:12 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Martin Steigerwald <martin@...htvoll.de>
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

On Wed 07-11-18 18:04:59, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> 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.

Do you have any specific example of the pid space exhaustion? Well
except for a fork bomb attacks that could be mitigated by the pid cgroup
controller.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs