linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v3 0/2] cgroup: New 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YEpoS90X19Z2QOro@blackbook>
Date:   Thu, 11 Mar 2021 19:58:19 +0100
From:   Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>, rdunlap@...radead.org,
        thomas.lendacky@....com, 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: [Patch v3 0/2] cgroup: New misc cgroup controller

Hello.

On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 07:48:40AM -0500, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Vipin, thank you very much for your persistence and patience.
Yes, and thanks for taking my remarks into account.

> Michal, as you've been reviewing the series, can you please take
> another look and ack them if you don't find anything objectionable?
Honestly, I'm still sitting on the fence whether this needs a new
controller and whether the miscontroller (:-p) is a good approach in the
long term [1].

I admit, I didn't follow the past dicussions completely, however,
(Vipin) could it be in the cover letter/commit messages shortly
summarized why cgroups and a controller were chosen to implement
restrictions of these resources, what were the alternatives any why were
they rejected?

In the previous discussion, I saw the reasoning for the list of the
resources to be hardwired in the controller itself in order to get some
scrutiny of possible changes. That makes sense to me. But with that, is
it necessary to commit to the new controller API via EXPORT_SYMBOL? (I
don't mean this as a licensing question but what the external API should
be (if any).)

Besides the generic remarks above, I'd still suggest some slight
implementation changes, posted inline to the patch.

Thanks,
Michal

[1] Currently, only one thing comes to my mind -- the delegation via
cgroup.subtree_control. The miscontroller may add possibly further
resources whose delegation granularity is bunched up under one entry.

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