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  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]
Date:	Thu, 6 Nov 2014 09:20:59 -0800 (PST)
From:	Vikas Shivappa <>
To:	Matt Fleming <>
cc:	Peter Zijlstra <>, Tejun Heo <>,
	Vikas Shivappa <>,
	"Auld, Will" <>,
	Vikas Shivappa <>,
	"" <>,
	"Fleming, Matt" <>
Subject: Re: Cache Allocation Technology Design

On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Matt Fleming wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Oct, at 11:47:40PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> Let me reply to just this one, I'll do the rest tomorrow, need sleeps.
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 06:22:36PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>>>> This controller might not even require the distinction between
>>>>> configured and effective tho?  Can't a new child just inherit the
>>>>> parent's configuration and never allow the config to become completely
>>>>> empty?
>>>> It can do that. But that still has a problem, there is a mapping in
>>>> hardware which restricts the number of active configurations. The total
>>>> configuration space is larger than the supported active configurations.
>>>> So _something_ must fail. The initial proposal was mkdir failing when
>>>> there were more than the hardware supported active config cgroup
>>>> directories. The alternative was on-demand activation where we only
>>>> allocate the hardware resource when the first task gets moved into the
>>>> group -- which then clearly can fail.
>>> Hmmm... why can't it just refuse creating a different configuration
>>> when its config space is full?  Make children inherit the parent's
>>> configuration and refuse config writes which require it to create a
>>> new one if the config space is full.  Seems pretty straight-forward.
>>> What am I missing?
>> We could do that I suppose, there is the one corner case that would not
>> allow, intermediate directories with a restricted config that also have
>> priv restrictions but no actual tasks. Not sure that makes sense though.
> Could you elaborate on this configuration?
>> Are there any other cases I might have missed?
> I don't think so.
> So, for the specific CAT case what you're proposing is make the failure
> case happen when writing to the cache bitmask file instead of failing
> mkdir() or echo $tid > tasks ?
> I think that's OK. If we've run out of CLOS ids I would expect to see
> -ENOSPC returned, whereas if we try and set an invalid bitmask we'd get
> Vikas, Will?

Yes that is correct. You can always create more cgroups and the new cgroup 
just inherits the mask from the parent and uses the same CLOSid as its 
parent , so it wont fail because of lack of CLOSids.

The only case of failure as you said is when user tries to modify a cbm to 
a different one.

> -- 
> Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists