Re: [PATCH 05/15] Add io_uring IO interface

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

 



Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 1/17/19 5:48 AM, Roman Penyaev wrote:
>> On 2019-01-16 18:49, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>> +static int io_allocate_scq_urings(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
>>> +				  struct io_uring_params *p)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct io_sq_ring *sq_ring;
>>> +	struct io_cq_ring *cq_ring;
>>> +	size_t size;
>>> +	int ret;
>>> +
>>> +	sq_ring = io_mem_alloc(struct_size(sq_ring, array, p->sq_entries));
>> 
>> It seems that sq_entries, cq_entries are not limited at all.  Can nasty
>> app consume a lot of kernel pages calling io_setup_uring() from a loop
>> passing random entries number? (or even better: decreasing entries 
>> number,
>> in order to consume all pages orders with min number of loops).
>
> Yes, that's an oversight, we should have a limit in place. I'll add that.

Can we charge the ring memory to the RLIMIT_MEMLOCK as well?  I'd prefer
not to repeat the mistake of fs.aio-max-nr.

-Jeff



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux