linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] cgroups: Task counter subsystem v8

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: <20120201115107.93e11471.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:51:07 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
	Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Aditya Kali <adityakali@...gle.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Tim Hockin <thockin@...kin.org>,
	Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@...il.com>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@...hat.com>,
	"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@...hat.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Max Kellermann <mk@...all.com>,
	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] cgroups: Task counter subsystem v8

On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 19:50:01 +0100
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 08:31:26AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 04:37:40AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > Changes In this version:
> > > 
> > > - Split 32/64 bits version of res_counter_write_u64() [1/10]
> > >   Courtesy of Kirill A. Shutemov
> > > 
> > > - Added Kirill's ack [8/10]
> > > 
> > > - Added selftests [9/10], [10/10]
> > > 
> > > Please consider for merging. At least two users want this feature:
> > 
> > Has there been further discussion about this approach?  IIRC, we
> > weren't sure whether this should be merged.
> 
> The doubts I have noticed were:
> 
> Q: Can't we rather focus on a global solution to fight forkbombs?
> 
> If we can find a reliable solution that works in any case and that
> prevent from any forkbomb to impact the rest of the system then it
> may be an acceptable solution. But I'm not aware of such feature.
> 
> Besides, another point in having this task counter is that we
> have a per container limit. Assuming all containers are running under
> the same user, we can protect against a container starving all others
> with a massive amount of processes close to the NR_PROC rlimit.
> 
> Q: Can/should we implement a limitation on the number of "fork" as well?
>    (as in https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/11/3/233 )
> 
> I'm still not sure about why such a thing is needed. Is it really something we
> want? Why can't the task counter be used instead?
> 
> I need more details from the author of this patch. But I doubt we can merge
> both subsystems, they have pretty different semantics.

What I struggle with is "is this feature useful enough to warrant
merging it"?
--
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/