linux-kernel - Re: patch] cpusets, cgroups: disallow attaching kthreadd

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: <1319106727.8653.3.camel@laptop>
Date:	Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:32:07 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>
Subject: Re: patch] cpusets, cgroups: disallow attaching kthreadd

On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 12:47 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > My thinking is that kthreadd is the mother of all kernel threads and the
> > kernel assumes it can spawn kthreads without constraints, a valid
> > assumption IMO.
> > 
> 
> Cgroups don't necessarily imply constraints,

And yet they're called: Control Groups..

>  though, you could devise a 
> cgroup to just do monitoring or statistics tracking for an aggregate of 
> tasks and placing kthreadd in such a cgroup would make perfect sense 
> because then, since children are forked in the same cgroup, you can 
> monitor or gather statistics for all kthreads.  This can be your only 
> cgroup on the system.

I guess you could, but does it really make sense? Also, you could sort
this by extending the cgroup interface to explicitly distinct between
controllers and !controllers.

> Cpusets, though, does imply cpu constraints, which is why we decline 
> PF_THREAD_BOUND threads from moving in the first place, which is the 
> source of Mike's issue.  It's can_attach() function can explicitly decline 
> kthreadd as well since the cpu constraints of both types of threads should 
> never be altered by either cpusets or sched_setaffinity().

Yeah, and I'm saying we want to exclude _all_ controllers from placing
constraints on kthreadd, even those that might not immediately break
stuff.

--
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/