linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH] cgroup: limit network bandwidth

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: <6599ad830801230859l298da3a7r208502993276c86b@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:59:49 -0800
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	righiandr@...rs.sourceforge.net
Cc:	"Naveen Gupta" <ngupta@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] cgroup: limit network bandwidth

On Jan 23, 2008 8:48 AM, Andrea Righi <righiandr@...rs.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> >
> > 1. Implementation of soft limits (limit on contention of resource)
> >    gets harder
>
> Why? do you mean implementing a grace time when the soft-limit is
> exceeded? this could be done in cgroup_nl_throttle() introducing 3
> additional attributes to struct netlimit (i.e. hard_limit,
> last_time_exceeded grace_time) and perform something like:
> ...
>         if ((current_rate > hard_limit) ||
>             time_after(jiffies, last_time_exceeded + grace_time))
>                         schedule_timeout(sleep);
> ...

He's talking about cases where we want the behaviour to be
work-conserving, whilst still offering guarantees in the event of
contention. e.g. cgroups A and B each get a 20% guarantee on the TX
path if they need it, but anyone can use any otherwise-idle bandwidth.
(This is relatively straightforward to set up from userspace with the
standard Linux traffic control tools).

>
> Yes, the integration with iptables (as Paul said), and traffic shaping
> rules would be absolutely the right way(tm) in perspective. I was just
> proposing a possible simple API to implement the limiting stuff.

But this issue (traffic control for cgroups) is too complex to be
described by a simple API. Any simple API you choose to try to
describe the limiting directly will be insufficient for a good number
of the potential users. Better to just provide a (very simple) API to
hook into the existing (complex) traffic control API and leave the
tricky stuff to userspace, where anyone can construct arbitrarily
complex queueing schemes with a shell script and a few calls to "tc".

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/