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 09:55:27 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, 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 Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:23:05AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 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?

Hmm, that's true, I think I was confused.
Thanks for setting me straight.

-- 
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