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: <20180531082613.GF12180@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 31 May 2018 10:26:13 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...com, pjt@...gle.com, luto@...capital.net,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuset: Enforce that a child's cpus must be a subset of
 the parent

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 04:12:34PM +0800, Zefan Li wrote:
> On 2018/5/31 9:25, Zefan Li wrote:
> > Hi Waiman,
> > 
> > On 2018/5/30 21:46, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> It was found that the cpuset.cpus could contain CPUs that are not listed
> >> in their parent's cpu list as shown by the command sequence below:
> >>
> >>   # echo "+cpuset" >cgroup.subtree_control
> >>   # mkdir g1
> >>   # echo 0-5 >g1/cpuset.cpus
> >>   # mkdir g1/g11
> >>   # echo "+cpuset" > g1/cgroup.subtree_control
> >>   # echo 6-11 >g1/g11/cpuset.cpus
> >>   # grep -R . g1 | grep "\.cpus"
> >>   g1/cpuset.cpus:0-5
> >>   g1/cpuset.cpus.effective:0-5
> >>   g1/g11/cpuset.cpus:6-11
> >>   g1/g11/cpuset.cpus.effective:0-5
> >>
> >> As the intersection of g11's cpus and that of g1 is empty, the effective
> >> cpus of g11 is just that of g1. The check in update_cpumask() is now
> >> corrected to make sure that cpus in a child cpus must be a subset of
> >> its parent's cpus. The error "write error: Invalid argument" will now
> >> be reported in the above case.
> >>
> > 
> > We made the distinction between user-configured CPUs and effective CPUs
> > in commit 7e88291beefbb758, so actually it's not a bug.
> > 
> 
> I remember the original reason is to support restoration of the original
> cpu after cpu offline->online. We use user-configured CPUs to remember
> if the cpu should be restored in the cpuset after it's onlined.

AFAICT you can do that and still have the child a subset of the parent,
no?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ