[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH review 3/6] userns: Recommend use of memory control groups.
Lord Glauber Costa of Sealand <> writes:

> I just saw in a later patch of yours that your concern here seems not
> limited to backed ram by tmpfs, but with things like the internal
> structures for userns , to avoid patterns in the form: 'for (;;)
> unshare(...)'
> Humm, it does seem sensible. The kernel memory controller aims to
> prevent exactly things like that. But they all exist already before
> userns: there are destructive patterns like that with sockets, dentries,
> processes, and pretty much every other resource in the kernel. So
> Although the recommendation per-se makes sense, I am wondering if it is
> worth it to mention anything in the user_ns config?

The config might be overkill. However I have already gotten bug reports
about there being no limits.

So someone needs to stop and connect the dots and say: "If you care this
is what you can do." Especially since the familiar old limits that can
kind of sort of prevent memory abuses are not generally available with
user namespaces.


 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-28 10:02    [W:0.059 / U:6.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site