linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] new cgroup controller "fork"

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: <4EB2D451.4010607@parallels.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 Nov 2011 15:50:09 -0200
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Max Kellermann <mk@...all.com>
CC:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Tim Hockin <thockin@...kin.org>,
	<containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] new cgroup controller "fork"

On 11/03/2011 03:48 PM, Max Kellermann wrote:
> On 2011/11/03 18:26, Glauber Costa<glommer@...allels.com>  wrote:
>> On 11/03/2011 03:16 PM, Max Kellermann wrote:
>>> but is different from my controller.
>>>
>> How so?
>
> Once the "remaining" counter has reached zero, no further forks are
> possible, no matter how many processes are left.  It is a fork
> counter, not a process counter.
>
> Let's say: Frederic's controller counts "things" that exists
> (processes), and my controller counts "verbs" or "ations" (fork()).
>
> Max
That still seems to be up to admin. If no processes are removed from the 
cgroup or included in the cgroup, the only action/verb the counter
is concerned about is to fork. Under this circumstance, both seem 
equivalent from my PoV.
--
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/