linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH mm v3 0/9] memcg: accounting for objects allocated by mkdir cgroup

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: <YpcyKdZkdkwUOzuy@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 1 Jun 2022 11:32:25 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Cc:     Vasily Averin <vvs@...nvz.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, kernel@...nvz.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm v3 0/9] memcg: accounting for objects allocated by
 mkdir cgroup

On Wed 01-06-22 11:15:43, Michal Koutny wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 06:43:27AM +0300, Vasily Averin <vvs@...nvz.org> wrote:
> > CT-901 /# cat /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/cgroup.subgroups_limit 
> > 512
> > CT-901 /# echo 3333 > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/cgroup.subgroups_limit 
> > -bash: echo: write error: Operation not permitted
> > CT-901 /# echo 333 > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/cgroup.subgroups_limit 
> > -bash: echo: write error: Operation not permitted
> > 
> > I doubt this way can be accepted in upstream, however for OpenVz
> > something like this it is mandatory because it much better
> > than nothing.
> 
> Is this customization of yours something like cgroup.max.descendants on
> the unified (v2) hierarchy? (Just curious.)
> 
> (It can be made inaccessible from within the subtree either with cgroup
> ns or good old FS permissions.)

So we already do have a limit to prevent somebody from running away with
the number of cgroups. Nice! I was not aware of that and I guess this
looks like the right thing to do. So do we need more control and
accounting that this?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs