linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/11] blkcg: implement per-blkg request allocation

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: <20120427154033.GJ10579@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:40:34 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
	ctalbott@...gle.com, rni@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	fengguang.wu@...el.com, hughd@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] blkcg: implement per-blkg request allocation

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 08:02:17AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:54:01AM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > > This patch implements per-blkg request_list.  Each blkg has its own
> > > request_list and any IO allocates its request from the matching blkg
> > > making blkcgs completely isolated in terms of request allocation.
> > 
> > So, nr_requests is now actually nr_requests * # of blk cgroups.  Is that
> > right?  Are you at all concerned about the amount of memory that can be
> > tied up as the number of cgroups increases?
> 
> Yeah, I thought about it and I don't think there's a single good
> solution here.  The other extreme would be splitting nr_requests by
> the number of cgroups but that seems even worse - each cgroup should
> be able to hit maximum throughput.  Given that a lot of workloads tend
> to regulate themselves before hitting nr_requests, I think it's best
> to leave it as-is and treat each cgroup as having separate channel for
> now.  It's a configurable parameter after all.

So on a slow device a malicious application can easily create thousands
of group, queue up tons of IO and create unreclaimable memory easily?
Sounds little scary. 

I had used two separate limits. Per queue limit and per group limit
(nr_requests and nr_group_requests). That had made implementation 
complex and relied on user doing the right configuration so that one
cgroup does not get serialized behind other once we hit nr_requests.
I am not advocating that solution as it was not very nice either.

Hmm.., tricky...

Thanks
Vivek
--
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/