Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965225AbWEOVHA (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 May 2006 17:07:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965227AbWEOVG7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 May 2006 17:06:59 -0400 Received: from mx.pathscale.com ([64.160.42.68]:14724 "EHLO mx.pathscale.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965225AbWEOVG7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 May 2006 17:06:59 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4 of 53] ipath - cap number of PDs that can be allocated From: "Bryan O'Sullivan" To: Roland Dreier Cc: openib-general@openib.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <300f0aa6f034eec6a806.1147477369@eng-12.pathscale.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:06:57 -0700 Message-Id: <1147727217.2773.6.camel@chalcedony.pathscale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 (2.6.1-1.fc5.2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 740 Lines: 19 On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 08:45 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > Would it make more sense to fix the stress test? I don't think so. Without some kind of limits, it is simple for an unprivileged user process to cause the kernel to allocate huge wads of memory and thereby DoS or accidentally OOM the machine. The test in question should probably be fixed, but this is a much more fundamental problem. I don't have any specific opinions on what should be done about it, other than "something".