Re: [RFC v1 00/14] Bus1 Kernel Message Bus

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1764 bytes --]

Hi!

I'm a bit late to the party...

> Example:
> Imagine a receiver with a limit of 1024 handles. A sender transmits a
> message to that receiver. It gets access to half the limit not used by
> anyone else, hence 512 handles. It does not matter how many senders
> there are, nor how many messages are sent, it will reach its quota at
> 512. As long as they all belong to the same user, they will share the
> quota and can queue at most 512 handles. If a second sending user
> comes into play, it gets half the remaining not used by anyone else,
> which ends up being 256. And so on... If the peer dequeues messages in
> between, the numbers get higher again. But if you do the math, the
> most you can get is 50% of the targets resources, if you're the only
> sender. In all other cases you get less (like intertwined transfers,
> etc).
> 
> We did look into sender-based inflight accounting, but the same set of
> issues arises. Sure, a Request+Reply model would make this easier to
> handle, but we want to explicitly support a Subscribe+Event{n} model.
> In this case there is more than one Reply to a message.
> 
> Long story short: We have uid<->uid quotas so far, which prevent DoS
> attacks, unless you get access to a ridiculous amount of local UIDs.
> Details on which resources are accounted can be found in the wiki
> [1].

So if there's limit of 1024 handles, all I need is 10 UIDs, right?

That might be a problem on multiuser unix machine, but on Android
phones, each application gets its own UID. So all you need is 10
applications to bring the system down...
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]