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: <20130401231824.GC2487@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Mon, 1 Apr 2013 16:18:24 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Tim Hockin <thockin@...kin.org>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.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>,
	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

Hello,

On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 03:57:46PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> I am not limited by kernel memory, I am limited by PIDs, and I need to
> be able to manage them.  memory.kmem.usage_in_bytes seems to be far
> too noisy to be useful for this purpose.  It may work fine for "just
> stop a fork bomb" but not for any sort of finer-grained control.

So, why are you limited by PIDs other than the arcane / weird
limitation that you have whereever that limitation is?

> > If you think you can tilt it the other way, please feel free to try.
> 
> Just because others caved, doesn't make it less of a hack.  And I will
> cave, too, because I don't have time to bang my head against a wall,
> especially when I can see the remnants of other people who have tried.
> 
> We'll work around it, or we'll hack around it, or we'll carry this
> patch in our own tree and just grumble about ridiculous hacks every
> time we have to forward port it.
> 
> I was just hoping that things had worked themselves out in the last year.

It's kinda weird getting this response, as I don't think it has been
particularly walley.  The arguments were pretty sound from what I
recall and Frederic's use case was actually better covered by kmemcg,
so where's the said wall?  And I asked you why your use case is
different and the only reason you gave me is some arbitrary PID
limitation on whatever thing you're using, which you gotta agree is a
pretty hard sell.  So, if you think you have a valid case, please just
explain it.  Why go passive agressive on it?  If you don't have a
valid case for pushing it, yes, you'll have to hack around it - carry
the patches in your tree, whatever, or better, fix the weird PID
problem.

-- 
tejun
--
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/