linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5

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]

Date:   Sat, 27 Jun 2020 12:21:36 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>
Cc:     Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@...gle.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>,
        "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:10 AM Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
> [..]
> > What do you think about having a separate cgroup for coresched?
> > Both coresched cgroup and prctl() could co-exist where prctl could
> > be used to isolate individual process or task and coresched cgroup
> > to group trusted processes.
>
> This sounds like a fine idea to me. I wonder how Tejun and Peter feel about
> having a new attribute-less CGroup controller for core-scheduling and just
> use that for tagging. (No need to even have a tag file, just adding/removing
> to/from CGroup will tag).

Unless there are any major objections to this idea, or better ideas
for CGroup users, we will consider proposing a new CGroup controller
for this. The issue with CPU controller CGroups being they may be
configured in a way that is incompatible with tagging.

And I was also thinking of a new clone flag CLONE_CORE (which allows a
child to share a parent's core). This is because the fork-semantics
are not clear and it may be better to leave the behavior of fork to
userspace IMHO than hard-coding policy in the kernel.

Perhaps we can also discuss this at the scheduler MC at Plumbers.

Any other thoughts?

 - Joel