linux-kernel - Re: threads-max observe limits

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: <20190919123812.8601e63d31cf44178dcbe75e@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:38:12 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@....de>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: threads-max observe limits

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:59:11 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Wed 18-09-19 09:15:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 17-09-19 12:26:18, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> [...]
> > > b) Not being able to bump threads_max to the physical limit of
> > >    the machine is very clearly a regression.
> > 
> > ... exactly this part. The changelog of the respective patch doesn't
> > really exaplain why it is needed except of "it sounds like a good idea
> > to be consistent".
> 
> Any take on this Heinrich? If there really is not strong reasoning about
> the restricting user input then I will suggest reverting 16db3d3f1170
> ("kernel/sysctl.c: threads-max observe limits")

I agree, based on what I'm seeing in this thread.