Messages in this thread | | | From | Tim Connors <> | Subject | Re: why swap at all? | Date | Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:50:42 +1000 |
| |
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu said on Tue, 01 Jun 2004 15:02:48 -0400: > --==_Exmh_482188856P > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 20:36:23 +0200, FabF said: > > > I guess we have a design problem right here.We could add per-process > > swappiness attribute.That swap thread becomes boring coz we're looking > > globally what's going wrong locally. > > Hmm.. do we need to worry about the same DoS issues we need to worry about with > mlock and friends? I know I can trust myself to not do stupid things to said > flags on my laptop (well... not twice anyhow ;). On the other hand, I have > systems with clueless users, and the even more dangerous half-clued users. And > then I have a bunch of machines in our security lab, where Bad Things happen > all the time...
I do often get frustrated that the DoS card is brought up to kill a potentially useful solution. I think there should be a flag in KConfig saying "This machine will be a server"/"This machine will be mostly a single user desktop machine". In the latter, you can enable all these vm/etc heuristics that will help out mozilla/X/your favourite bloat-ware, but potentially enable a DoS attack, and in the former, you stay conservative.
I can't rememeber the situation that I was last annoyed by someone saying "but what about a DoS?"...
-- TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/ Entropy requires no maintenance. -- Markoff Chaney - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |