linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC] core/nfsd: allow kernel threads to use task

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: <20231129-querschnitt-urfassung-3ebd703c345a@brauner>
Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2023 12:43:36 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] core/nfsd: allow kernel threads to use task_work.

> If an nfsd thread only completes the close that it initiated the close
> on (which is what I am currently proposing) then there would be at most
> one, or maybe 2, fds to close after handling each request.  While that
> is certainly a non-zero burden, I can't see how it can realistically be
> called a DOS.

The 10s of millions of files is what makes me curious. Because that's
the workload that'd be interesting.

> > It feels that this really needs to be tested under a similar workload in
> > question to see whether this is a viable solution.
> > 
> 
> Creating that workload might be a challenge.  I know it involved
> accessing 10s of millions of files with a server that was somewhat
> memory constrained.  I don't know anything about the access pattern.
> 
> Certainly I'll try to reproduce something similar by inserting delays in
> suitable places.  This will help exercise the code, but won't really
> replicate the actual workload.