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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 22:30:32 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: pagupta@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, jasowang@...hat.com, dgibson@...hat.com, vfalico@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com, vyasevic@...hat.com, hkchu@...gle.com, wuzhy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, xemul@...allels.com, therbert@...gle.com, bhutchings@...arflare.com, xii@...gle.com, stephen@...workplumber.org, jiri@...nulli.us, sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-net 0/4] Increase the limit of tuntap queues On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 01:43:23PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:46:23 +0200 > > > At the moment attaching/detaching queues is an unpriveledged operation. > > > > Shouldn't we worry that an application can cause large > > allocations, and provide a way to limit these? > > > > David, could you comment on this please? > > I don't want arbitrary limits imposed. > > Where does this "application" run? If it's in the host, then who > cares? If they suck up all of their available memory with queue > resources, it's their problem. qemu runs in the host, but it's unpriveledged: it gets passed tun FDs by a priveledged daemon, and it only has the rights to some operations, in particular to attach and detach queues. The assumption always was that this operation is safe and can't make kernel run out of resources. -- MST -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists