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  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:	Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:23:05 +0800
From:	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	pagupta@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, 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 11/23/2014 06:46 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:44:27PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 03:16:28PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>>> > > From: Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@...hat.com>
>>> > > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:52:54 +0530
>>> > > 
>>>> > > > - Accept maximum number of queues as sysctl param so that any user space 
>>>> > > >   application like libvirt can use this value to limit number of queues. Also
>>>> > > >   Administrators can specify maximum number of queues by updating this sysctl
>>>> > > >   entry.
>>> > > 
>>> > > This is the only part I don't like.
>>> > > 
>>> > > Just let whoever has privileges to configure the tun device shoot
>>> > > themselves in the foot if they want to by configuring "too many"
>>> > > queues.
>>> > > 
>>> > > If the virtual entity runs itself out of resources by doing something
>>> > > stupid, it's purely their problem.
>> > 
>> > Well it will run host out of kernel, no?
> To clarify:
>
> 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?

But creating new queues (TUNSETIFF) is privileged. There's no way for
unprivileged user to allocate more resources. So we are safe here?
--
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