linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] cgroup/cpuset: Make cpuset_fork() handle CLONE_INTO

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: <44843f08-b7c2-42e3-1951-a0c5688190a1@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Apr 2023 13:29:57 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        gscrivan@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cgroup/cpuset: Make cpuset_fork() handle
 CLONE_INTO_CGROUP properly


On 4/3/23 13:18, Waiman Long wrote:
>
> On 4/3/23 12:55, Michal Koutný wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 10:50:43AM -0400, Waiman Long 
>> <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>>> By default, the clone(2) syscall spawn a child process into the same
>>> cgroup as its parent. With the use of the CLONE_INTO_CGROUP flag
>>> introduced by commit ef2c41cf38a7 ("clone3: allow spawning processes
>>> into cgroups"), the child will be spawned into a different cgroup which
>>> is somewhat similar to writing the child's tid into "cgroup.threads".
>>>
>>> The current cpuset_fork() method does not properly handle the
>>> CLONE_INTO_CGROUP case where the cpuset of the child may be different
>>> from that of its parent.  Update the cpuset_fork() method to treat the
>>> CLONE_INTO_CGROUP case similar to cpuset_attach().
>> Should .can_fork=cpuset_can_fork in analogy to cpuset_can_attach be also
>> devised? (Sorry if I missed that in the previous discussion.)
>
> I have thought about that too.
>
> However, the can_attach method checks only a couple of things:
>
> 1) PF_NO_SETAFFINITY flag - which won't be set in the case of fork() 
> as it is for kthread only.
> 2) DL bandwidth - Juri has a cpuset outstanding to modify the way this 
> check is being done. I want to wait until it is settled before 
> tackling this, if necessary.

BTW, even cloning without CLONE_INTO_CGROUP can be an issue WRT DL 
bandwidth. So I will let the scheduler folk figure out what to do with that.

Cheers,
Longman