Hello,
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:43:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Is it correct that you fix one local DoS by introducing a new one?
> > With the page the !priv user can block root from registering a threshold.
> > Is it really the way we want to fix it?
>
> OK, I will think about it some
On Thu 08-08-13 01:05:13, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 04:37:27PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 07-08-13 09:58:18, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 03:46:54PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > OK, I have obviously misunderstood your
On Thu 08-08-13 01:05:13, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 04:37:27PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 07-08-13 09:58:18, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 03:46:54PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
OK, I have obviously misunderstood your concern
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:43:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
Is it correct that you fix one local DoS by introducing a new one?
With the page the !priv user can block root from registering a threshold.
Is it really the way we want to fix it?
OK, I will think about it some more.
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 04:37:27PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 07-08-13 09:58:18, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 03:46:54PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > OK, I have obviously misunderstood your concern mentioned in the other
> > > email. Could you be more
On Wed 07-08-13 09:58:18, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 03:46:54PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > OK, I have obviously misunderstood your concern mentioned in the other
> > email. Could you be more specific what is the DoS scenario which was
> > your concern, then?
>
>
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 03:46:54PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> OK, I have obviously misunderstood your concern mentioned in the other
> email. Could you be more specific what is the DoS scenario which was
> your concern, then?
So, let's say the file is write-accessible to !priv user
On Wed 07-08-13 09:22:10, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 01:28:25PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > There is no limit for the maximum number of threshold events registered
> > per memcg. This might lead to an user triggered memory depletion if a
> > regular user is allowed
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 01:28:25PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> There is no limit for the maximum number of threshold events registered
> per memcg. This might lead to an user triggered memory depletion if a
> regular user is allowed to register on memory.[memsw.]usage_in_bytes
> eventfd
There is no limit for the maximum number of threshold events registered
per memcg. This might lead to an user triggered memory depletion if a
regular user is allowed to register on memory.[memsw.]usage_in_bytes
eventfd interface.
Let's be more strict and cap the number of events that might be
There is no limit for the maximum number of threshold events registered
per memcg. This might lead to an user triggered memory depletion if a
regular user is allowed to register on memory.[memsw.]usage_in_bytes
eventfd interface.
Let's be more strict and cap the number of events that might be
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 01:28:25PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
There is no limit for the maximum number of threshold events registered
per memcg. This might lead to an user triggered memory depletion if a
regular user is allowed to register on memory.[memsw.]usage_in_bytes
eventfd
On Wed 07-08-13 09:22:10, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 01:28:25PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
There is no limit for the maximum number of threshold events registered
per memcg. This might lead to an user triggered memory depletion if a
regular user is allowed to
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 03:46:54PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
OK, I have obviously misunderstood your concern mentioned in the other
email. Could you be more specific what is the DoS scenario which was
your concern, then?
So, let's say the file is write-accessible to !priv user which
On Wed 07-08-13 09:58:18, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 03:46:54PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
OK, I have obviously misunderstood your concern mentioned in the other
email. Could you be more specific what is the DoS scenario which was
your concern, then?
So, let's say
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 04:37:27PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 07-08-13 09:58:18, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 03:46:54PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
OK, I have obviously misunderstood your concern mentioned in the other
email. Could you be more specific what
16 matches
Mail list logo
