linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] cgroups: Task counter subsystem v6

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:38:25 +0200
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...il.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Tim Hockin <thockin@...kin.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Aditya Kali <adityakali@...gle.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
	Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] cgroups: Task counter subsystem v6

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:06:35 -0700
> Tim Hockin <thockin@...kin.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm00@...il.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, __3 Oct 2011 21:07:02 +0200
>> > Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Andrew,
>> >>
>> >> This contains minor changes, mostly documentation and changelog
>> >> updates, off-case build fix, and a code optimization in
>> >> res_counter_common_ancestor().
>> >
>> > I'd normally duck a patch series like this when we're at -rc8 and ask
>> > for it to be resent late in -rc1. __But I was feeling frisky so I
>> > grabbed this lot for a bit of testing and will sit on it until -rc1.
>> >
>> > I'm still not convinced that the kernel has a burning need for a "task
>> > counter subsystem". __Someone convince me that we should merge this!
>>
>> We have real (accidental) DoS situations which happen because we don't
>> have this.  It usually takes the form of some library no re-joining
>> threads.  We end up deploying a few apps linked against this library,
>> and suddenly we're in trouble on a machine.  Except, this being
>> Google, we're in trouble on a lot of machines.
>
> This is a bit foggy.  I think you mean that machines are experiencing
> accidental forkbombs?
>
>> There may be other ways to cobble this sort of safety together, but
>> they are less appealing for various reasons.  cgroups are how we
>> control groups of related pids.
>>

In the end of the day, all cgroups are just a group of tasks. So I don't really
get the need to have a cgroup to control the number of tasks in the system.

Why don't we just allow all cgroups to have a limit on the number of
tasks it can hold?




-- 
Sent from my Atari.
--
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/