From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx199.postini.com [74.125.245.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D443B6B0033 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 04:57:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:57:32 +0900 From: Minchan Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] mm: Implement RLIMIT_RSS Message-ID: <20130613085732.GB4533@bbox> References: <20130611182921.GB25941@logfs.org> <20130611211601.GA29426@cmpxchg.org> <20130611215319.GA29368@logfs.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20130611215319.GA29368@logfs.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel Cc: Johannes Weiner , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hey Jorn, On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 05:53:20PM -0400, Jorn Engel wrote: > On Tue, 11 June 2013 17:16:01 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:29:21PM -0400, Jorn Engel wrote: > > > I've seen a couple of instances where people try to impose a vsize > > > limit simply because there is no rss limit in Linux. The vsize limit > > > is a horrible approximation and even this patch seems to be an > > > improvement. > > > > > > Would there be strong opposition to actually supporting RLIMIT_RSS? > > > > This is trivial to exploit by creating the mappings first and > > populating them later, so while it may cover some use cases, it does > > not have the protection against malicious programs aspect that all the > > other rlimits have. > > Hm. The use case I have is that an application wants to limit itself. > It is effectively a special assert to catch memory leaks and the like. > So malicious programs are not my immediate concern. Just out of curisoity. It means you already know the max rss of the application in advance so you can use taskstats's hiwater_rss if you don't need to catch the moment which rss is over the limit. -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758324Ab3FMI5e (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jun 2013 04:57:34 -0400 Received: from LGEMRELSE6Q.lge.com ([156.147.1.121]:61129 "EHLO LGEMRELSE6Q.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756572Ab3FMI5c (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jun 2013 04:57:32 -0400 X-AuditID: 9c930179-b7c79ae0000022e6-27-51b9897a15fc Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:57:32 +0900 From: Minchan Kim To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel Cc: Johannes Weiner , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] mm: Implement RLIMIT_RSS Message-ID: <20130613085732.GB4533@bbox> References: <20130611182921.GB25941@logfs.org> <20130611211601.GA29426@cmpxchg.org> <20130611215319.GA29368@logfs.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20130611215319.GA29368@logfs.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hey Jörn, On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 05:53:20PM -0400, Jörn Engel wrote: > On Tue, 11 June 2013 17:16:01 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:29:21PM -0400, Jörn Engel wrote: > > > I've seen a couple of instances where people try to impose a vsize > > > limit simply because there is no rss limit in Linux. The vsize limit > > > is a horrible approximation and even this patch seems to be an > > > improvement. > > > > > > Would there be strong opposition to actually supporting RLIMIT_RSS? > > > > This is trivial to exploit by creating the mappings first and > > populating them later, so while it may cover some use cases, it does > > not have the protection against malicious programs aspect that all the > > other rlimits have. > > Hm. The use case I have is that an application wants to limit itself. > It is effectively a special assert to catch memory leaks and the like. > So malicious programs are not my immediate concern. Just out of curisoity. It means you already know the max rss of the application in advance so you can use taskstats's hiwater_rss if you don't need to catch the moment which rss is over the limit. -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim