linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/7] containers (V7): 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]

Message-ID: <45D110A3.1010502@vilain.net>
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:13:07 +1300
From:	Sam Vilain <sam@...ain.net>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc:	vatsa@...ibm.com, sekharan@...ibm.com,
	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	xemul@...ru, dev@...ru, rohitseth@...gle.com, pj@....com,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, winget@...gle.com,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, serue@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/7] containers (V7): Generic Process Containers

Paul Menage wrote:
>> Ask yourself this - what do you need the container structure for so
>> badly, that virtualising the individual resources does not provide for?
>>     
> Primarily, that otherwise every module that wants to affect/monitor
> behaviour of a group of associated processes has to implement its own
> process grouping abstraction.
>   

Not every module, you just make them on sensible, planned groupings. 
The danger is that the "container" group becomes a fallback grouping for
things when people can't be bothered thinking about it properly, and
everything including the kitchen sink gets thrown in.  Then later you
find a real use case where you don't want them together, but it's too
late because it's already a part of the official API.

> As an example, the CPU accounting patch that in included in my patch
> set as an illustration of a simple resource monitoring module is just
> 250 lines, almost entirely in one file; if it also had to handle
> associating tasks together into groups and presenting a filesystem
> interface to the user it would be far larger and would have a much
> bigger footprint on the kernel.
>   

It's also less flexible.  What if I want to do CPU accounting on some
other boundaries than the "virtual server" a process is a part of?

> From the point of view of the virtual server containers, the advantage
> is that you're integrated with a standard filesystem interface for
> determining group membership. It does become simpler to combine
> virtual servers and resource controllers, although I grant you that
> you could juggle that from userspace without the additional kernel
> support.
>   

I'm not disagreeing it's a pragmatic shortcut that has been successful
for a number of projects including vserver which I use every day.  But
it reduces "synergy" by excluding the people working with virtualisation
in ways that don't fit its model.

Yes, there should be a similarity in the way that you manage namespaces
and it should be easy to develop new namespaces without constantly
re-inventing the wheel.  But why does that imply making binding
decisions about the nature of how you can virtualise?  IMHO those
decisions should be made on a per-subsystem basis.

Sam.
-
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/