linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/12] cgroups: Add a task counter 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: <20110906154009.326b8dca.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 6 Sep 2011 15:40:09 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Aditya Kali <adityakali@...gle.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	Tim Hockin <thockin@...kin.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/12] cgroups: Add a task counter subsystem

On Tue,  6 Sep 2011 02:13:03 +0200
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:

> Add a new subsystem to limit the number of running tasks,
> similar to the NR_PROC rlimit but in the scope of a cgroup.
> 
> This is a step to be able to isolate a bit more a cgroup against
> the rest of the system and limit the global impact of a fork bomb
> inside a given cgroup.

It would be nice to show some testing results for the putative
forkbomb-control feature.

>
> ...
>
> +config CGROUP_TASK_COUNTER
> +	bool "Control number of tasks in a cgroup"
> +	depends on RESOURCE_COUNTERS
> +	help
> +	  Let the user set up an upper bound allowed number of tasks running
> +	  in a cgroup.

"of the allowed"?

Perhaps this help section could be fleshed out somewhat.

>
> ...
>
> @@ -0,0 +1,199 @@
> +/*
> + * Limits on number of tasks subsystem for cgroups
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2011 Red Hat, Inc., Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...hat.com>
> + *
> + * Thanks to Andrew Morton, Johannes Weiner, Li Zefan, Oleg Nesterov and Paul Menage
> + * for their suggestions.

80 cols, please.  (checkpatch!)

> + *
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/cgroup.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/res_counter.h>
> +
> +
> +struct task_counter {
> +	struct res_counter		res;
> +	struct cgroup_subsys_state	css;
> +};
> +
> +/*
> + * The root task counter doesn't exist as it's not part of the
> + * whole task counting in order to optimize the trivial case
> + * of only one root cgroup living.

That sentence is rather hard to follow.

> + */
> +static struct cgroup_subsys_state root_css;
> +
> +
> +static inline struct task_counter *cgroup_task_counter(struct cgroup *cgrp)
> +{
> +	if (!cgrp->parent)
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	return container_of(cgroup_subsys_state(cgrp, tasks_subsys_id),
> +			    struct task_counter, css);
> +}
> +
> +static inline struct res_counter *cgroup_task_counter_res(struct cgroup *cgrp)

"cgroup_res_counter" would be a more symmetrical name.  Or perhaps
cgroup_task_res_counter.  Swapping the "counter" and "res" seems odd.

> +{
> +	struct task_counter *cnt;
> +
> +	cnt = cgroup_task_counter(cgrp);
> +	if (!cnt)
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	return &cnt->res;
> +}
> +
>
> ...
>
> +/* Protected amongst can_attach_task/attach_task/cancel_attach_task by cgroup mutex */

/*
 * Protected amongst can_attach_task/attach_task/cancel_attach_task by cgroup
 * mutex
 */

(checkpatch)

>
> ...
>
> +static int task_counter_can_attach_task(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cgroup *old_cgrp,
> +					struct task_struct *tsk)
> +{
> +	struct res_counter *res = cgroup_task_counter_res(cgrp);
> +	struct res_counter *old_res = cgroup_task_counter_res(old_cgrp);
> +	int err;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * When moving a task from a cgroup to another, we don't want
> +	 * to charge the common ancestors, even though they will be
> +	 * uncharged later from attach_task(), because during that
> +	 * short window between charge and uncharge, a task could fork
> +	 * in the ancestor and spuriously fail due to the temporary
> +	 * charge.
> +	 */
> +	common_ancestor = res_counter_common_ancestor(res, old_res);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If cgrp is the root then res is NULL, however in this case
> +	 * the common ancestor is NULL as well, making the below a NOP.
> +	 */
> +	err = res_counter_charge_until(res, common_ancestor, 1, NULL);
> +	if (err)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

One would expect a "can"-named function to return a boolean.  This one
returns an errno which is OK, I guess.  But the function is misnamed
because if successful it actually alters charges.  A less misleading
name would be simply task_counter_attach_task(), but that's already
taken.  Or perhaps task_counter_try_attach_task(), but that seems
unnecessary to me - many many kernel functions "try" something and back
out with an errno if it failed.

I really do dislike the fact that the documentation is over in another
file and another patch.  For a start, it makes review harder and
slower.

>
> ...
>

--
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/