linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] 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 PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Thu, 23 Sep 2021 06:01:09 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Xingyou Chen <rockrush@...kwork.org>
Cc:     Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>, mkoutny@...e.com,
        jacob.jun.pan@...el.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,
        brian.welty@...el.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, kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] cgroup: New misc cgroup controller

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 11:38:49PM +0800, Xingyou Chen wrote:
> > Misc controller is a generic controller which can be used by these
> > kinds of resources.
> 
> Will we make this dynamic? Let resources be registered via something
> like misc_cg_res_{register,unregister}, at compile time or runtime,
> instead of hard coded into misc_res_name/misc_res_capacity etc.
> 
> There are needs as noted in drmcg session earlier this year. We may
> make misc cgroup stable, and let device drivers to register their
> own resources.

Not too likely given that the need for one-off resources for a specific
driver seems to indicate lack of proper abstraction and control mechanism
more than anything else. Even for cases where there are genuine needs for
per-hardware knobs, I think it's prudent to enforce a review cycle which
involves people who aren't directly working on the specific driver.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun