[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d98d86f9f5824573b2441089e0c2ae91@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 21:50:02 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Li, Xiaoyao" <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>
CC: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 2/3] x86/bus_lock: Handle #DB for bus lock
> What is the justifucation for making this rate limit per UID and not
> per task, per process or systemwide?
The concern is that a malicious user is running a workload that loops
obtaining the buslock. This brings the whole system to its knees.
Limiting per task doesn't help. The user can just fork(2) a whole bunch
of tasks for a distributed buslock attack..
Systemwide might be an interesting alternative. Downside would be accidental
rate limit of non-malicious tasks that happen to grab a bus lock periodically
but in the same window with other buslocks from other users.
Do you think that a risk worth taking to make the code simpler?
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists