linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 17/19] sched: Inherit task cookie on fork()

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: <CABk29NsMtsMvvVLbq7fGR0EMLZ9soFKGnE-SeectjWLym6YGcg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 May 2021 13:20:02 -0700
From:   Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Chris Hyser <chris.hyser@...cle.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Glexiner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/19] sched: Inherit task cookie on fork()

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 2:05 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> Right, I need a Champion that actually cares about cgroups and has
> use-cases to go argue with TJ on this. I've proposed code that I think
> has sane semantics, but I'm not in a position to argue for it, given I
> think a world without cgroups is a better world :-)))

Not sure if Tejun has any thoughts on
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CABk29NtahuW6UERvRdK5v8My_MfPsoESDKXUjGdvaQcHOJEMvg@mail.gmail.com.

We're looking at using the prctl interface with one of our main
internal users of core scheduling. As an example, suppose we have a
management process that wants to make tasks A and B share a cookie:
- Spawn a new thread m, which then does the following, and exits.
- PR_SCHED_CORE_CREATE for just its own PID
- PR_SCHED_CORE_SHARE_TO A
- PR_SCHED_CORE_SHARE_TO B

That seems to work ok; I'll follow up if there are any pain points
that aren't easily addressed with the prctl interface.