linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm 2/6] introduce struct res_counter

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: <6599ad830810061014q5535b5b6kfb53182b3fcc60c8@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 6 Oct 2008 10:14:42 -0700
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	righi.andrea@...il.com
Cc:	"Balbir Singh" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, agk@...rceware.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, axboe@...nel.dk, baramsori72@...il.com,
	"Carl Henrik Lunde" <chlunde@...g.uio.no>, dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	"Divyesh Shah" <dpshah@...gle.com>, eric.rannaud@...il.com,
	fernando@....ntt.co.jp, "Hirokazu Takahashi" <taka@...inux.co.jp>,
	"Li Zefan" <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Marco Innocenti" <m.innocenti@...eca.it>, matt@...ehost.com,
	ngupta@...gle.com, randy.dunlap@...cle.com, roberto@...it.it,
	"Ryo Tsuruta" <ryov@...inux.co.jp>,
	"Satoshi UCHIDA" <s-uchida@...jp.nec.com>,
	subrata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 2/6] introduce struct res_counter_ratelimit

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com> wrote:
>> Could you not either:
>>
>> - include these two extra fields in res_counter?
>> - include res_counter as the first field in a res_counter_ratelimit?
>
> The second solution would save some space if the "ratelimit" part is not used.

Having a "policy" field in res_counter seems like it might be reusable
as something for other non-ratelimited res_counters. And even if it's
not, the memory overhead of a couple of extra fields in a res_counter
is trivial compared to the overhead of resource isolation anyway.

So my first approach to this would be just extend res_counter, and
then split them apart later if it turns out that they really do need
mutually incompatible code/handlers.

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/