Re: up'ing /proc/sys/fs/inotify/max_user_watches ?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 12:45 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:41:48PM -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
>  > On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 12:01 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>  > > kde packagers received a request to consider shipping systems with a 
>  > > higher (default) value of
>  > > /proc/sys/fs/inotify/max_user_watches
>  > > to allow for a better experience for noticing changes (notably when 
>  > > using nepomuk indexing of content in users' homedir).
>  > > 
>  > > The suggested value was something like 524288 (seems the default on f13 
>  > > is 8192).
>  > > 
>  > > A recent kde-sig meeting discussed the topic,
>  > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/Meetings/2010-07-27
>  > > 
>  > > where mjg59 also agreed "It's probably justifiable to increase it".
>  > > 
>  > > So, any comments or objections implementing this (for f14)?
>  > 
>  > I'm not opposed to it but this does allow used to allocate and hold
>  > kernel memory.  The math is roughly 200 bytes per watch.  So right now a
>  > normal user can only allocate about 200*8192 bytes which is about 1.6M
>  > of kernel memory.  Not such a bad thing.
>  > 
>  > Your suggestion would allow the user to allocate 200 * 524288 = 105M.
>  > On a 64bit system this might not matter, but on a 32bit system this is a
>  > substantial amount of the memory the kernel has.
>  > 
>  > And these allocations are not counted against normal userspace limits.
>  > 
>  > I'm not opposed to upping it, especially on x86_64, but maybe not quite
>  > that high....
> 
> ideally, when an application that cares about this is installed, it could 
> increase it via sysctl.conf 
> That default isn't a one size fits all. Regardless of what we set it to,
> someone is going to want it smaller/bigger.

I think we want to be very careful how much we suggest $random-package
muck with sysctl.  Ubuntu got a black eye since wine automatically
changed mmap_min_addr if it was installed.  It's not always clear what
the implications of a change include.  How many people on this list (the
kernel list) would have guessed that the suggestion here would allow
5-10 users completely DoS a 32 machine?

Rex, if you do decide to change it in sysctl lets try to keep it within
a factor of 10 or so?  You might want to ask the upstream kernel
community what they think.

-Eric

_______________________________________________
kernel mailing list
kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Older Fedora Users Archive]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Coolkey]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [USB]     [Asterisk PBX]

  Powered by Linux