[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 6/13] signal/timer/event fds v9 - timerfd core ...
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> The DoS is simple: create a bunch of periodic timers with 10usec period.
> This can be done by any user.

Ok, that's what I immagined. Agreed, that's a problem.

> There is no inaccuracy when you rearm the timer on read: hrtimer_forward
> takes care, that the period is accurate. It does not start the timer out
> of the periodic order, i.e. on a different time frame.
> Where is the win of keeping the timer running, when nobody cares about
> the expiry at all ? It just generates interrupts and events for nothing.

Then you'd lose the ability to know if you lost one or more (yes, you
could figure it out by reading the time and with a few calculations). I
think that the capping (to a sane value) idea solves the DoS issue and at
the same time have the ability to report you missed ticks. What are your
strong points against that solution?

- Davide

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-04-02 19:33    [W:0.072 / U:2.300 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site