linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/14] resource limits: aggregate task highwater marks to cgroup level

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: <08d85be0-5ac7-d7ea-0fec-ceb3970f264b@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:57:10 +0000
From:	Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@...il.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
	"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/14] resource limits: aggregate task highwater marks to
 cgroup level

On 07/18/16 22:52, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 05:15:41PM +0000, Topi Miettinen wrote:
>> There are clear semantics for the limits themselves, either they apply
>> per task or per user. It makes sense to gather values according to these
>> semantics. Then with systemd or other tools you can use the valuse to
>> set the limits for a service regardless if the limit applies per task or
>> per user and it works according to each limit's semantics.
> 
> What does it mean to collect the maximum of the high watermarks of
> multiple users or the high water marks along process hierarchy which
> is spread across multiple cgroups?  These are non-sensical numbers.
> If you want to collect high watermarks per-cgroup, the numbers have to
> be per-cgroup - how many fds are being used in that particular cgroup
> and what's the high watermark of that number and so on.  You can't
> just take maximum from process hierarchy or user watermarks.

Then there would need to be new limit checks at cgroup level. Would you
see problems with that approach?

-Topi