[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7b2d6bf91d30c007e19a7d2cbddcb2460e72d163.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 12:48:33 +0200
From: nsaenzju@...hat.com
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Nitesh Lal <nilal@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alex Belits <abelits@...vell.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] add basic task isolation prctl interface
On Tue, 2021-07-27 at 07:38 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> +Isolation mode (PR_ISOL_MODE):
> +------------------------------
> +
> +- PR_ISOL_MODE_NONE (arg4): no per-task isolation (default mode).
> + PR_ISOL_EXIT sets mode to PR_ISOL_MODE_NONE.
> +
> +- PR_ISOL_MODE_NORMAL (arg4): applications can perform system calls normally,
> + and in case of interruption events, the notifications can be collected
> + by BPF programs.
> + In this mode, if system calls are performed, deferred actions initiated
> + by the system call will be executed before return to userspace.
> +
> +Other modes, which for example send signals upon interruptions events,
> +can be implemented.
Shouldn't this be a set of flags that enable specific isolation features?
Something the likes of 'PR_ISOL_QUIESCE_ON_EXIT'. Modes seem more restrictive
and too much of a commitment. If we merge MODE_NORMAL as is, we won't be able
to tweak/extend its behaviour in the future.
--
Nicolás Sáenz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists