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.