netdev - Re: [PATCH] af_unix: fix unix_nr_socks check in unix

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <65347D45-9062-4F03-AB13-24321FF5B64A@gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 25 Aug 2012 12:17:40 -0400
From:	Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] af_unix: fix unix_nr_socks check in unix_create1()

On Aug 25, 2012, at 2:43 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:

> I dont think this patch is right.
> 
> atomic_long_inc_return() is expensive, more than atomic_long_inc()
> 
> And setting a 2^63 limit for max number of files is plain wrong,
> as there is no way a kernel can allocate 2^63 files structures.
> 
> (same apply on 32bit arches, but for 2^31)
> 
> If you feel you must warn a sysadmin of stupid settings, add sane
> boundaries in kernel/sysctl.c, and send your patch to lkml instead.

Yeah, I agree it's better to limit max_files in sysctl.  I will send
another patch instead.  Thanks.

- xi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html