linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/9] cgroup/pids: Separate semantics of pids.events related to pids.max

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: <ZhQvmnnxhiVo1duU@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 07:55:38 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/9] cgroup/pids: Separate semantics of
 pids.events related to pids.max

Hello,

On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 07:05:41PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
> Currently, when pids.max limit is breached in the hierarchy, the event
> is counted and reported in the cgroup where the forking task resides.
> 
> This decouples the limit and the notification caused by the limit making
> it hard to detect when the actual limit was effected.
> 
> Let's introduce new events:
> 	  max
> 		The number of times the limit of the cgroup was hit.
> 
> 	  max.imposed
> 		The number of times fork failed in the cgroup because of self
> 		or ancestor limit.

The whole series make sense to me. I'm not sure about max.imposed field
name. Maybe a name which clearly signfies rejection of forks would be
clearer? Johannes, what do you think?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun