From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753463AbcGZENj (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2016 00:13:39 -0400 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:43702 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750858AbcGZENf (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2016 00:13:35 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: David Miller Cc: containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, keescook@chromium.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net, seth.forshee@canonical.com, kernel@kyup.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, jann@thejh.net References: <878twp6zd2.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <20160725.172406.352408511647766870.davem@davemloft.net> <87k2g95it9.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <20160725.195836.1881375122073635224.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 23:00:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20160725.195836.1881375122073635224.davem@davemloft.net> (David Miller's message of "Mon, 25 Jul 2016 19:58:36 -0700 (PDT)") Message-ID: <877fc92gm8.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1bRtkI-0001HW-Ll;;;mid=<877fc92gm8.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=67.3.204.119;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX18DzuB2ls/0QJI0UZU+GW5RPSLEOtsJOtw= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.3.204.119 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.4998] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa07 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 T_TooManySym_01 4+ unique symbols in subject X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa07 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;David Miller X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 1019 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.04 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 4.2 (0.4%), b_tie_ro: 3.0 (0.3%), parse: 0.96 (0.1%), extract_message_metadata: 18 (1.7%), get_uri_detail_list: 1.63 (0.2%), tests_pri_-1000: 7 (0.6%), tests_pri_-950: 1.19 (0.1%), tests_pri_-900: 0.98 (0.1%), tests_pri_-400: 19 (1.9%), check_bayes: 18 (1.8%), b_tokenize: 4.9 (0.5%), b_tok_get_all: 6 (0.6%), b_comp_prob: 1.79 (0.2%), b_tok_touch_all: 2.7 (0.3%), b_finish: 0.77 (0.1%), tests_pri_0: 201 (19.7%), check_dkim_signature: 0.43 (0.0%), check_dkim_adsp: 22 (2.1%), tests_pri_500: 764 (75.0%), poll_dns_idle: 759 (74.5%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] userns: Add per user namespace sysctls. X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David Miller writes: > From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) > Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 19:44:50 -0500 > >> User namespaces have enabled unprivileged users access to a lot more >> data structures and so to catch programs that go crazy we need a lot >> more limits. I believe some of those limits make sense per namespace. >> As it is easy in some cases to say any more than Y number of those >> per namespace is excessive. For example a limit of 1,000,000 ipv4 >> routes per network namespaces is a sanity check as there are >> currently 621,649 ipv4 prefixes advertized in bgp. > > When we give a new namespace to unprivileged users, we honestly should > make the sysctl settings we give to them become "limits". They can > further constrain the sysctl settings but may not raise them. I won't disagree. I was thinking in terms of global setting that hold the limits for per namespace counters. As we are talking sanity check limits. Perhaps we could get sophisticated and do something more but the simpler we can make things and get the job done the better. Eric