linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/7] containers (V7): BeanCounters over generic process containers

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:	Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:03:12 -0800
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	"Pavel Emelianov" <xemul@...ru>
Cc:	akpm@...l.org, pj@....com, sekharan@...ibm.com, dev@...ru,
	serue@...ibm.com, vatsa@...ibm.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rohitseth@...gle.com, mbligh@...gle.com, winget@...gle.com,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] containers (V7): BeanCounters over generic process containers

On 2/13/07, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...ru> wrote:
> menage@...gle.com wrote:
> > This patch implements the BeanCounter resource control abstraction
> > over generic process containers. It contains the beancounter core
> > code, plus the numfiles resource counter. It doesn't currently contain
> > any of the memory tracking code or the code for switching beancounter
> > context in interrupts.
>
> Numfiles is not the most interesting place in beancounters.
> Kmemsize accounting is much more important actually.

Right, but the memory accouting was a much bigger and more intrusive
patch than I wanted to include as an example.

>
> I have already pointed out the fact that this place
> will hurt performance too much. If we have some context
> on task this context must
>   1. be get-ed without any locking

Would you also be happy with the restriction that a task couldn't be
moved in/out of a beancounter container by any task other than itself?
If so, the beancounter can_attach() method could simply return false
if current != tsk, and then you'd not need to worry about locking in
this situation.

>   2. be settable to some temporary one without
>      locking as well

I thought that we solved that problem by having a tmp_bc field in the
task_struct that would take precedence over the main bc if it was
non-null?

Paul
-
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/