On Wed 14-12-16 11:13:11, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> > On Tue 13-12-16 08:33:34, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 Dec 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > > > Well, my point was that it is not really hard to imagine to deplete
> > > > larger contiguous memory blocks (say PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER). Those are
> > > > still causing the OOM killer and chances are that a controlled flood of
> > > > these requests could completely DoS the system.
> > > 
> > > Putting a limit on the total size of a single transfer would prevent 
> > > this.
> > 
> > Dunno, putting a limit to the user visible interface sounds wrong to me.
> 
> In practice, I think the data transfer sizes tend to be not very large.  
> But I could be wrong about that.

That is one part the other is whether a malicious user can abuse this to
DoS the kernel which is the point I am trying to make here. Depleting
non-costly high orders can be quite dangerious so allowing a free ticket
to them to arbitrary user in an arbitrary amount is definitely not good.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to