netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH 1/4] samples/bpf: adjust rlimit RLIMIT_MEMLOCK for traceex2, tracex3 and tracex4

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: <20170503.093150.577196301654107151.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 03 May 2017 09:31:50 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     alexei.starovoitov@...il.com
Cc:     brouer@...hat.com, kafai@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        eric@...it.org, borkmann@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 1/4] samples/bpf: adjust rlimit RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
 for traceex2, tracex3 and tracex4

From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 17:53:16 -0700

> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:31:50PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>> Needed to adjust max locked memory RLIMIT_MEMLOCK for testing these bpf samples
>> as these are using more and larger maps than can fit in distro default 64Kbytes limit.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
> ...
>> +	struct rlimit r = {1024*1024, RLIM_INFINITY};
> ...
>> +	struct rlimit r = {1024*1024, RLIM_INFINITY};
> 
> why magic numbers?
> All other samples do
> struct rlimit r = {RLIM_INFINITY, RLIM_INFINITY};

Let's not do that.

People run these tests often as root, so the safer we make running
these test the better.

A weird magic limit is better than none at all.