linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] misc_cgroup: remove error log to avoid log flood

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: <478e986c-bc69-62b8-936e-5b075f9270b4@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Sep 2021 13:30:46 +0800
From:   brookxu <brookxu.cn@...il.com>
To:     Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
        Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>
Cc:     tj@...nel.org, lizefan.x@...edance.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] misc_cgroup: remove error log to avoid log flood


Thanks for your time.

Michal Koutný wrote on 2021/9/10 2:56 上午:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 09:49:56AM -0700, Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com> wrote:
>> We are adding two files in this patch series, misc.events and
>> misc.events.local. I think "fail" should go in misc.events.local and
>> its name should be changed to "max".
> 
> I consider the max vs fail orthogonal to local vs hierarchical. I.e.
> both entries can be in both files:
> 
> (1) misc.events.local:max	number of times the cgroup's misc.max was hit
> (2) misc.events.local:fail	number of times operation failed in the cgroup
> (3) misc.events:max		number of times the cgroup's misc.max was hit in the subtree
> (4) misc.events:fail		number of times operation failed in the subtree
> 
> Is that too many? Admittedly, I assume (1) and (4) will be the more useful ones.
> However, I'm afraid overloading "max" as suggested might be (more)
> confusing. ('subtree' above := self or descendant)

I am a bit confused here. For misc_cgroup, we can only be rejected when the count
touch Limit, but there may be other more reasons for other subsystems. Therefore,
when we are rejected, does it mean that we have touch Limit? If so, do we still
need to distinguish between max and fail? (for misc_cgroup)

> Michal
>