linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] misc_cgroup: use a counter to count the number of failures

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4ed67493-e595-e002-69f9-1f53662ba189@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Aug 2021 09:34:45 +0800
From:   brookxu <brookxu.cn@...il.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Cc:     lizefan.x@...edance.com, hannes@...xchg.org, vipinsh@...gle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] misc_cgroup: use a counter to count the number of
 failures



Tejun Heo wrote on 2021/8/25 3:08:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 06:44:23PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
>> However, the non-hierarchical failcnt interface looks like v1ism to me
>> (I think new features should come with v2 first in mind).
>> What about exposing this in misc.events file with max.$res_name entries? 
> 
> Ah yeah, good point. misc.events sounds like a good spot to put these.
> 
>> Or if the hierarchical reporting is unnecessary now, there can be just
>> misc.events.local for starters.
> 
> I'd prefer to stick with hierarchical counting as the first step at least.
> 
>> (That reminds me the forgotten pids.events[.local] rework [1], oops.)
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191128172612.10259-1-mkoutny@suse.com/#t

The core logic of pids cgroup and misc cgroup is similar. Is it possible for
us to merge pids cgroup into misc cgroup?

> I think both counters are useful - the number of failures due to this type
> of limit in this subhierarchy, and the number of failures caused by this
> particular limit in this subhierarchy. It's a pretty subtle difference to
> encapsulate in a counter name tho.
> 
> Thanks.
>