linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:17:17 +0400
From:	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>
To:	rohitseth@...gle.com
CC:	vatsa@...ibm.com, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
	nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, sam@...ain.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dev@...nvz.org, efault@....de,
	balbir@...ibm.com, sekharan@...ibm.com, nagar@...son.ibm.com,
	haveblue@...ibm.com, pj@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management -	A	cpu
 controller

>>>>>Doesnt the ability to move tasks between groups dynamically affect
>>>>>(atleast) memory controller design (in giving up ownership etc)?
>>>>
>>>>we save object owner on the object. So if you change the container,
>>>>objects are still correctly charged to the creator and are uncharged
>>>>correctly on free.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Seems like the object owner should also change when the object moves
>>>from one container to another.
> 
> 
>>Consider a file which is opened in 2 processes. one of the processes
>>wants to move to another container then. How would you decide whether
>>to change the file owner or not?
>>
> 
> 
> If a process has sufficient rights to move a file to a new container
> then it should be okay to assign the file to the new container.  
there is no such notion as  "rights to move a file to a new container".
The same file can be opened in processes belonging to other containers.
And you have no any clue whether to have to change the owner or not.

> Though the point is, if a resource (like file) is getting migrated to a
> new container then all the attributes (like owner, #pages in memory
> etc.) attached to that resource (file) should also migrate to this new
> container.  Otherwise the semantics of where does the resource belong
> becomes very difficult.
The same for many other resources. It is a big mistake thinking that most resources
belong to the processes and the owner process can be easily determined.

> And if you really want a resource to not be able to migrate from one
> container then we could define IMMUTABLE flag to indicate that behavior.
I hope not that one used in ext[23]? :)

Kirill

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/