linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH-cgroup 1/6] cgroup: Relax the no internal process constraint

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: <20170621213905.GD14720@htj.duckdns.org>
Date:   Wed, 21 Jun 2017 17:39:05 -0400
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, pjt@...gle.com,
        luto@...capital.net, efault@....de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-cgroup 1/6] cgroup: Relax the no internal process
 constraint

Hello,

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 05:37:00PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > What happens when we add domain handling to CPU so that it is both a
> > domain and resource controller?  Even if that somehow can be resolved,
> > wouldn't that come with a rather surprising userland behavior changes?
> > Also, I'm not sure what we're achieving by doing this.  It doesn't
> > really relax the restriction.  It just turns it off implicitly when
> > certain conditions are met, which doesn't really allow any real
> > capabilities and at least to me the behaviors feel more subtle and
> > complicated than before.
> 
> I think CPU isn't a good example for that.

Can you please elaborate?

> Another alternative is to treat no internal process as a controller
> attribute. Then we don't need to worry about this intricate question and
> let the  controllers decide if they will allow internal processes.

Isn't that what "threaded" is?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun