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: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 11:10:06 -0700 From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> To: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: VRF and/or cgroups problem on Fedora-30, 5.2.21+ kernel On 11/22/19 5:23 PM, Ben Greear wrote: >> > > Setting: ulimit -l 1024 > > 'fixed' the problem. > > I'd rather waste a bit of memory and not have any of my users hit such > an esoteric > bug, so I'll set it to at least 1024 going forward. agreed. > > Would large numbers of vrf and/or network devices mean you need more > locked memory? I have seen this problem way too much, but not taken the time to track down all of the locked memory use. A rough estimate is that each 'ip vrf exec' uses 1 page (4kB) of locked memory until the command exits. If you use that as a rule you would be on the high end. Commands in the same cgroup hierarchy should all be using the same program. > > And surely 'ip' could output a better error than just 'permission > denied' for > this error case? Or even something that would show up in dmesg to give > a clue? That error comes from the bpf syscall: bpf(BPF_PROG_LOAD, {prog_type=BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK, insn_cnt=6, insns=0x7ffc8e5d1e00, license="GPL", log_level=1, log_size=262144, log_buf="", kern_version=KERNEL_VERSION(0, 0, 0), prog_flags=0, prog_name="", prog_ifindex=0, expected_attach_type=BPF_CGROUP_INET_INGRESS, prog_btf_fd=0, func_info_rec_size=0, func_info=NULL, func_info_cnt=0, line_info_rec_size=0, line_info=NULL, line_info_cnt=0}, 112) = -1 EPERM (Operation not permitted) Yes it is odd and unhelpful for a memory limit to cause the failure and then return EPERM.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists