linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/2] cpusets, cpu_cgroup: 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: <1333736770.2960.114.camel@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 06 Apr 2012 20:26:10 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] cpusets, cpu_cgroup: disallow attaching kthreadd

On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 08:52 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, David.
> 
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 04:40:06PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> > Well, I'm fussing over it because the patch being considered unnecessary 
> > requires that kthreadd can't be moved anywhere and I know one company is 
> > trying to move in a direction where nothing is in the root memcg.
> 
> "Nothing in the root memcg" can't be a goal in and of itself.  You
> want that to achieve some functional goal and I'm trying to say this
> specific kthreadd change doesn't necessarily affect the goal - better
> accounting - all that much.  If root group is gonna be completely
> empty otherwise, just combine information from it.  Even if that
> doesn't work, assigning specific kthreads to appropriate cgroups after
> the creation wouldn't be too far off.  I just don't see how relevant
> it actually would be.
> 
> If we want all controlles to play by the same rules, which is
> necessary for having a unified hierarchy, I wanna keep those rules
> simple.  If bound kthreads in !root cgroups cause issues for some and
> there aren't quite strong reasons to do otherwise, I would just
> restrict them in the root.  It's not like those kthreads are
> cgroup-aware in any form anyway.
> 
> I don't know.  Just proceed without kthreadd in the root.  If the
> fallouts are big enough and can't be easily worked around, let's talk
> then.

Furthermore, the whole point of kthreadd's existence is so that we could
create kthreads without context. Placing it in a cgroup will ensure all
subsequently created kthreads do have context (including possible idle
threads). This seems like a particularly bad idea.




--
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/