linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] cgroup: implement cgroup v2 thread support

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:   Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:26:09 -0400
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     lizefan@...wei.com, hannes@...xchg.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        longman@...hat.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, pjt@...gle.com,
        luto@...capital.net, efault@....de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        guro@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] cgroup: implement cgroup v2 thread support

Hello, Peter.

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 04:14:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> AFAICT this is not in fact what I suggested... :/

Heh, sorry about misattributing that.  I was mostly referring to the
overall idea of marking each cgroup domain or threaded rather than
subtree.

> My proposal did not have that invalid state. It would simply refuse to
> change the type from thread to domain in the case where the parent is
> not a domain.
> 
> Also, my proposal maintained the normal property inheritance rules. A
> child cgroup's creation 'type' would be that of its parent and not
> always be 'domain'.

But aren't both of the above get weird when the parent can host both
domain and threaded children?

	 R
       / 
      A(D)

If you create another child B under R, it's naturally gonna be a
domain.  Let's say you turn that to threaded.

	 R
       /   \
     A(D) B(T)

And now try to create another child C, should that be a domain or
threaded?

If we only inherit from the second level on, which is in itself
already confusing, that still leads to invalid configs for non-root
thread roots.

I don't think whether we fail the transition or put the cgroup in an
invalid state is all that material.  The simpler the better.

> Let me read more (and more careful) to see if there's other things.

Sure thing.

Thanks!

-- 
tejun