[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZgWnPZtwBYfHEFzf@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 07:22:05 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>
Cc: Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 0/3] bpf: freeze a task cgroup from bpf
Hello, Djalal.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 11:53:22PM +0100, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> This patch series adds support to freeze the task cgroup hierarchy
> that is on a default cgroup v2 without going through kernfs interface.
>
> For some cases we want to freeze the cgroup of a task based on some
> signals, doing so from bpf is better than user space which could be
> too late.
>
> Planned users of this feature are: tetragon and systemd when freezing
> a cgroup hierarchy that could be a K8s pod, container, system service
> or a user session.
>
> Patch 1: cgroup: add cgroup_freeze_no_kn() to freeze a cgroup from bpf
> Patch 2: bpf: add bpf_task_freeze_cgroup() to freeze the cgroup of a task
> Patch 3: selftests/bpf: add selftest for bpf_task_freeze_cgroup
It bothers me a bit that it's adding a dedicated interface for something
which already has a defined userspace interface. Would it be better to have
kfunc wrappers for kernel_read() and kernel_write()?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists