linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] cgroups: Add an rlimit subsystem

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: <20110706002142.GA10010@somewhere.redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 6 Jul 2011 02:21:45 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Aditya Kali <adityakali@...gle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] cgroups: Add an rlimit subsystem

Please keep the Cc list, everybody may has missed your message. I just found
it while browsing randomly my lkml INBOX.

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 05:37:17PM +0000, Aditya Kali wrote:
> Paul Menage <menage <at> google.com> writes:
> > What we need is a res_counter_move_charge(A, B, amount) function which will:
> > 
> > - locate C, the nearest common ancestor of A and B
> > - lock up the chain from B up to but not including C, adding the new charge
> > - unlock up the chain from B to C
> > - uncharge along the chain from A up to but not including C (not sure
> > how much locking is needed there since there's no need for roll back).
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> 
> Another alternative is to use the 'attach' callback in struct cgroup_subsys which
> gets both the old cgroup and the new cgroup as parameters and do
> rlim_remove_proc(old_cgrp) and res_counter_charge(new_cgrp) in this same
> function under the protection of a spinlock.
> It would be good to add a return value to the 'attach' callback too.

But the it would require a global lock, or a per hierarchy one, if you want
to protect against forks and exits. And that wouldn't scale due to these fork/exit
that would take that big lock.
--
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/