OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [RFC][PATCH 0/7] Resource controllers based on process containers
Re: controlling mmap()'d vs read/write() pages [message #18002 is a reply to message #17892] Fri, 23 March 2007 12:21 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
ebiederm is currently offline  ebiederm
Messages: 1354
Registered: February 2006
Senior Member
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> writes:

>> Would any of them work on a system on which every filesystem was on
>> ramfs, and there was no swap?  If not then they are not memory attacks
>> but I/O attacks.
>>
>> I completely concede that you can DOS the system with I/O if that is
>> not limited as well.
>>
>> My point is that is not a memory problem but a disk I/O problem which is
>> much easier to and cheaper to solve.  Disk I/O is fundamentally a slow
>> path which makes it hard to modify it in a way that negatively affects
>> system performance.
>>
>> I don't think with a memory RSS limit you can DOS the system in a way
>> that is purely about memory.  You have to pick a different kind of DOS
>> attack.
>
> It can be done trivially without performing any IO or swap, yes.

Please give me a rough sketch of how to do so.

Or is this about DOS'ing the system by getting the kernel to allocate
a large number of data structures (struct file, struct inode, or the like)?

Eric
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 7/7] containers (V7): Container interface to nsproxy subsystem
Next Topic: Linux-VServer example results for sharing vs. separate mappings ...
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Nov 19 00:37:07 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03151 seconds