linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH 2/3] kernel/pid: Remove default pid

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]

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 16:32:07 +0200
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, 
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, 
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>, 
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Tycho Andersen <tandersen@...flix.com>, 
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 2/3] kernel/pid: Remove default pid_max value

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 03:03:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> A large increase in the maximum number of processes.

The change from (some) default to effective infinity is the crux of the
change. Because that is only a number.
(Thus I don't find the number's 12700% increase alone a big change.)

Actual maximum amount of processes is "workload dependent" and hence
should be determined based on the particular workload.

> Or did I misinterpret?

I thought you saw an issue with projection of that number into sizings
based on the default. Which of them comprises the large change in your
eyes?

Thanks,
Michal