linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:00:54 -0700
From:	Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, rohitseth@...gle.com,
	hugh@...itas.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters

On Sat, 2006-08-26 at 00:12 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Gwe, 2006-08-25 am 15:23 -0700, ysgrifennodd Chandra Seetharaman:
> > > Bean counters can exist with no tasks, and the CKRM people have been
> > > corrected repeatedly on this point.
> > 
> > Hmm... from what I understand from the code, when the last resource in
> > the beancounter is dropped, the beancounter is destroyed. Which to me
> > means that when there are no tasks in a beancounter it will be
> > destroyed. (I just tested the code and verified that the beancounter is
> > destroyed when the task dies).
> 
> If a task created resource remains then the beancounter remains until
> the resources are destroyed, so it may exit well after the last task (eg
> an object handed to another process with a different luid is stil
> charged to us)
> 

It is the _implicit destruction_ that is a problem.
 
> > Let me reword the requirement: beancounter/resource group should _not_
> > be destroyed implicitly. It should be destroyed only when requested by
> > the user/sysadmin. In other words, we need a create_luid() and
> > destroy_luid().
> 
> So that you can preserve the limits on the resource group ? That also
> makes sense if you are trying to do long term resource management.

Yup.

> 
> Alan
-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chandra Seetharaman               | Be careful what you choose....
              - sekharan@...ibm.com   |      .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


-
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/