linux-kernel - Re: [Devel] Re: [RFC] libcg: design and plans

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:	Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:18:18 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	"Denis V. Lunev" <den@...allels.com>
CC:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	fedora-devel-list@...hat.com, opensuse-packaging@...nsuse.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sudhir Kumar <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [RFC] libcg: design and plans

Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 22:15 -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
>> Hi Dhaval,
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>  We have been working on a library for control groups which would provide
>>>  simple APIs for programmers to utilize from userspace and make use of
>>>  control groups.
>>>
>>>  We are still designing the library and the APIs. I've attached the
>>>  design (as of now) to get some feedback from the community whether we
>>>  are heading in the correct direction and what else should be addressed.
>> There are a few things that it would be nice to include in such a
>> library, if you're going to develop one:
>>
>> - the ability to create abstract groups of processes, and resource
>> groups, and have the ability to tie these together arbitrarily. E.g
>> you might create abstract groups A, B and C, and be able to say that A
>> and B share memory with each other but not with C, and all three
>> groups are isolated from each other for CPU. Then libcg would mount
>> different resource types in different cgroup hierarchies (you would
>> probably tell it ahead of time which combinations of sharing you would
>> want, in order that it could minimize the number of mounted
>> hierarchies). When you tell libcg to move a process into abstract
>> group A, it would move it into the appropriate resource group in each
>> hierarchy.
> 
> There is one more important thing. In addition to the processes you must
> unite or provide a way to unite other objects like sockets. This is
> needed to create a group-based socket buffer management.
> 
> The mapping between socket and a process does not exists right now and,
> we can have (virtually), sockets from from different namespaces in one
> process.
> 

Not sure how any of this is related to the library design we are discussing.
Your talking about writing a controller that groups based on sockets, that is a
totally different thing.

-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
--
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/