lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    Subject[PATCH 0/1] sys_setrlimit: make sure ->rlim_max never grows
    On 09/03, Jiri Slaby wrote:
    >
    > On 09/02/2009 11:51 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
    > > On 09/02, Jiri Slaby wrote:
    > >> I can't think of anything else than doing all the checks and updates
    > >> under alloc_lock, introducing coarse grained static mutex in setrlimit
    > >> to protect it,
    > >
    > > Oh, please don't ;)
    > >
    > > Or I missed your point?
    > >
    > > But if you mean this series, then yes, I agree.
    >
    > Yes, I meant those. But I don't know what do you agree with :).

    Not sure what I agree with, but I am glad we seem to agree with each other ;)

    > > We should try to do something
    > > to ensure that at least rlim_max can be always lowered when admin writes to
    > > /proc/pid/limits.
    >
    > Yes, that's what I asked about when I wrote the three options which I
    > was able to think of above. So any other ideas about how to elegantly
    > protect against sys_setrlimit vs. admin+/proc/*/limits race?

    Perhaps we should start these change with this patch (see the next email) ?

    Perhaps, before your changes, we should "fix" sys_setrlimit() first ?
    Well, the patch (the next email) is not tested... What do you think?

    Oleg.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-09-03 19:27    [W:0.022 / U:0.716 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site