[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180208185648.GB9524@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:56:48 -0800
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Warn the user when they could overflow mapcount
On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 01:05:33PM -0500, Daniel Micay wrote:
> The standard map_max_count / pid_max are very low and there are many
> situations where either or both need to be raised.
[snip good reasons]
> I do think the default value in the documentation should be fixed but
> if there's a clear problem with raising these it really needs to be
> fixed. Google either of the sysctl names and look at all the people
> running into issues and needing to raise them. It's only going to
> become more common to raise these with people trying to use lots of
> fine-grained sandboxing. Process-per-request is back in style.
So we should make the count saturate instead, then? That's going to
be interesting.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
