Re: [PATCH v2] Document /proc/pid PID reuse behavior

2018-11-20 Thread Pavel Machek
On Tue 2018-11-20 09:49:50, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:05:21 +0100 > Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > > Why can't the documentation describe the current implementation, and > > change in the future if the implementation changes? I doubt somebody > > would ever rely on the pid being

Re: [PATCH v2] Document /proc/pid PID reuse behavior

2018-11-19 Thread Daniel Colascione
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 2:54 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2018-11-05 13:22:05, Daniel Colascione wrote: >> State explicitly that holding a /proc/pid file descriptor open does >> not reserve the PID. Also note that in the event of PID reuse, these >> open file descriptors refer to the old, now-

Re: [PATCH v2] Document /proc/pid PID reuse behavior

2018-11-19 Thread Aleksa Sarai
On 2018-11-07, Daniel Colascione wrote: > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 07-11-18 15:48:20, Daniel Colascione wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> > otherwise anybody could simply DoS the system > >> > by consuming all available pid

Re: [PATCH v2] Document /proc/pid PID reuse behavior

2018-11-19 Thread Pavel Machek
On Mon 2018-11-05 13:22:05, Daniel Colascione wrote: > State explicitly that holding a /proc/pid file descriptor open does > not reserve the PID. Also note that in the event of PID reuse, these > open file descriptors refer to the old, now-dead process, and not the > new one that happens to be name

Re: [PATCH v2] Document /proc/pid PID reuse behavior

2018-11-07 Thread Martin Steigerwald
Michal Hocko - 07.11.18, 17:00: > > > otherwise anybody could simply DoS the system > > > by consuming all available pids. > > > > People can do that today using the instrument of terror widely known > > as fork(2). The only thing standing between fork(2) and a full > > process table is RLIMIT_NPR