linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] CPU hard limits

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:	Fri, 5 Jun 2009 17:55:27 +0800
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc:	bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>
Subject: Re: [RFC] CPU hard limits

* menage@...gle.com <menage@...gle.com> [2009-06-05 02:48:36]:

> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Balbir Singh<balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > The important scenario I have is adding and removing groups.
> >
> > Consider 10 cgroups with shares of 10 each, what if 5 new are created
> > with the same shares? We now start getting 100/15, even though we did
> > not change our shares.
> 
> Are you assuming that arbitrary users can create new cgroups whenever
> they like, with whatever shares they like? In that situation, how
> would you use hard limits to provide guarantees? Presumably if the
> user could create a cgroup with an arbitrary share, they could create
> one with an arbitrary hard limit too.
>

What about applications running as root, that can create their own
groups? How about multiple instances of the same application started?
Do applications need to know that creating a group will hurt
guarantees provided to others?
 
> Can you explain a bit more about how you're envisaging cgroups being
> created, and how their shares and hard limits would get set? I was
> working on the assumption that (for any sub-tree of the CFS hierarchy)
> there's a single managing entity that gets to decide the shares given
> to the cgroups within that tree. That managing entity would be
> responsible for ensuring that the shares given out allowed guarantees
> to be met (or alternatively, that the probability of violating those
> guarantees based on the shares given out was within some tolerance
> threshold).
>

The point is that there is no single control entity for creating
groups. if run a solution, it might create groups without telling the
user. No one is arbitrating, not even libcgroup. What if someone
changes the cpuset assignment and moves CPUS x to y in an exclusive
cpuset all of a sudden. How do we arbitrate?

 
-- 
	Balbir
--
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/