linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8 v3] cgroups: Task counter subsystem (was: New max number of tasks 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: <CAAAKZwupGmw_+EaApZFAqVcXWBF885Gsjx6tUWUdMuebXrt_Mg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:11:18 -0700
From:	Tim Hockin <thockin@...kin.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Aditya Kali <adityakali@...gle.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8 v3] cgroups: Task counter subsystem (was: New max
 number of tasks subsystem)

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:13:22 +0200
> Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> Reminder:
>>
>> This patchset is aimed at reducing the impact of a forkbomb to a
>> cgroup boundaries, thus minimizing the consequences of such an attack
>> against the rest of the system.
>>
>> This can be useful when cgroups are used to stage some processes or run
>> untrustees.
>
> Really?  How useful?  Why is it useful enough to justify adding code
> such as this to the kernel?
>
> Is forkbomb-prevention the only use?  Others have proposed different
> ways of preventing forkbombs which were independent of cgroups - is
> this way better and if so, why?

I certainly want this for exactly the proposed use - putting a bounds
on threads/tasks per container.  It's rlimits but more useful.

IMHO, most every limit that can be set at a system level should be
settable at a cgroup level.  This is just one more isolation leak.

>>  block/blk-cgroup.c            |   10 ++-
>>  include/linux/cgroup.h        |   15 +++-
>>  include/linux/cgroup_subsys.h |    8 ++
>>  include/linux/res_counter.h   |   12 +++
>>  init/Kconfig                  |    7 ++
>>  kernel/Makefile               |    1 +
>>  kernel/cgroup.c               |   25 ++++--
>>  kernel/cgroup_freezer.c       |    3 +-
>>  kernel/cgroup_task_counter.c  |  176 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  kernel/cpuset.c               |    6 +-
>>  kernel/events/core.c          |    5 +-
>>  kernel/fork.c                 |    4 +
>>  kernel/res_counter.c          |   81 ++++++++++++++++---
>>  kernel/sched.c                |    6 +-
>
> The patch forgot to document the feature: how it works, what it's
> useful for, what behaviour users can expect to see, when they should
> consider using it, what the userspace control interface is and how to
> configure it, etc.  Documentation/cgroups/ is the place for that.

+1 - I am not very familiar with the cgroups code, so I am disinclined
to learn it all just to evaluate the functionality and API of this
patch.  Design doc, please?

Tim
--
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/