linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][0/3] Virtual address space control for cgroups

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:	Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:45:42 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC:	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Sudhir Kumar <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, taka@...inux.co.jp,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][0/3] Virtual address space control for cgroups

Paul Menage wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>  I understand the per-mm pointer overhead back to the cgroup. I don't understand
>>  the part about adding a per-mm pointer back to the "owning" task. We already
>>  have task->mm.
> 
> Yes, but we don't have mm->owner, which is what I was proposing -
> mm->owner would be a pointer typically to the mm's thread group
> leader. It would remove the need to have to have pointers for the
> various different cgroup subsystems that need to act on an mm rather
> than a task_struct, since then you could use
> mm->owner->cgroups[subsys_id].
> 

Aaahh.. Yes.. mm->owner might be a good idea. The only thing we'll need to
handle is when mm->owner dies (I think the thread group is still kept around).
The other disadvantage is the double dereferencing, which should not be all that
bad.

> But this is kind of orthogonal to whether virtual address space limits
> should be a separate cgroup subsystem.
> 

Yes, sure.


-- 
	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/