linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/2] cgroup: sev: Add misc cgroup controller

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YDkEbv9u3OBNpk6f@blackbook>
Date:   Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:23:42 +0100
From:   Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To:     Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>
Cc:     thomas.lendacky@....com, tj@...nel.org, brijesh.singh@....com,
        jon.grimm@....com, eric.vantassell@....com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        hannes@...xchg.org, frankja@...ux.ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        corbet@....net, seanjc@...gle.com, vkuznets@...hat.com,
        wanpengli@...cent.com, jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
        gingell@...gle.com, rientjes@...gle.com, dionnaglaze@...gle.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] cgroup: sev: Add misc cgroup controller

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:28:46AM -0800, Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com> wrote:
> My approach here is that it is the responsibility of the caller to:
> 1. Check the return value and proceed accordingly.
> 2. Ideally, let all of the usage be 0 before deactivating this resource
>    by setting capacity to 0
If the calling side can ensure itself that no new units of the resource
are used from that moment on, then it can work this way -- but describe
that in misc_cg_set_capacity() comment.

> Is the above change good?
I think both alternatives would work. But the latter (as I see it now)
would mandate dependency on CONFIG_CGROUP or it'd have to double the
similar logic itself. So maybe keeping the caller responsible explicitly
is simpler from this POV.

> Will there be any objection to extra information?
IMO it's unnecessary (stating this just for consistency reasons), no
strong opinion.

Michal

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)