linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] tcp buffer limitation: per-cgroup limit

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: <m24o01khcp.fsf@firstfloor.org>
Date:	Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:58:14 -0700
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paul@...lmenage.org,
	lizf@...fujitsu.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, davem@...emloft.net, gthelen@...gle.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, kirill@...temov.name
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] tcp buffer limitation: per-cgroup limit

Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> writes:

> This patch uses the "tcp_max_mem" field of the kmem_cgroup to
> effectively control the amount of kernel memory pinned by a cgroup.
>
> We have to make sure that none of the memory pressure thresholds
> specified in the namespace are bigger than the current cgroup.

I noticed that some other OS known by bash seem to have a rlimit per
process for this. Would that make sense too? Not sure how difficult
your infrastructure would be to extend to that.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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/