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: <CA+CK2bBoLi9tYWHSFyDEHWd_cwvS_hR4q2HMmg-C+SJpQDNs=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 13:54:31 +0000
From: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
To: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@...nel.org>
Cc: jasonmiu@...gle.com, graf@...zon.com, changyuanl@...gle.com, 
	rppt@...nel.org, dmatlack@...gle.com, rientjes@...gle.com, corbet@....net, 
	rdunlap@...radead.org, ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com, kanie@...ux.alibaba.com, 
	ojeda@...nel.org, aliceryhl@...gle.com, masahiroy@...nel.org, 
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tj@...nel.org, yoann.congal@...le.fr, 
	mmaurer@...gle.com, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, chenridong@...wei.com, 
	axboe@...nel.dk, mark.rutland@....com, jannh@...gle.com, 
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, hannes@...xchg.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com, 
	david@...hat.com, joel.granados@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, 
	anna.schumaker@...cle.com, song@...nel.org, zhangguopeng@...inos.cn, 
	linux@...ssschuh.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-mm@...ck.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, 
	mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, 
	hpa@...or.com, rafael@...nel.org, dakr@...nel.org, 
	bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org, cw00.choi@...sung.com, 
	myungjoo.ham@...sung.com, yesanishhere@...il.com, Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, 
	quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com, aleksander.lobakin@...el.com, ira.weiny@...el.com, 
	andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, leon@...nel.org, lukas@...ner.de, 
	bhelgaas@...gle.com, wagi@...nel.org, djeffery@...hat.com, 
	stuart.w.hayes@...il.com, lennart@...ttering.net, brauner@...nel.org, 
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, saeedm@...dia.com, 
	ajayachandra@...dia.com, jgg@...dia.com, parav@...dia.com, leonro@...dia.com, 
	witu@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/30] Live Update Orchestrator

> > https://github.com/googleprodkernel/linux-liveupdate/tree/luo/v3
> >
> > Changelog from v2:
> > - Addressed comments from Mike Rapoport and Jason Gunthorpe
> > - Only one user agent (LiveupdateD) can open /dev/liveupdate
> > - With the above changes, sessions are not needed, and should be
> >   maintained by the user-agent itself, so removed support for
> >   sessions.
>
> If all the FDs are restored in the agent's context, this assigns all the
> resources to the agent. For example, if the agent restores a memfd, all
> the memory gets charged to the agent's cgroup, and the client gets none
> of it. This makes it impossible to do any kind of resource limits.
>
> This was one of the advantages of being able to pass around sessions
> instead of FDs. The agent can pass on the right session to the right
> client, and then the client does the restore, getting all the resources
> charged to it.
>
> If we don't allow this, I think we will make LUO/LiveupdateD unsuitable
> for many kinds of workloads. Do you have any ideas on how to do proper
> resource attribution with the current patches? If not, then perhaps we
> should reconsider this change?

Hi Pratyush,

That's an excellent point, and you're right that we must have a
solution for correct resource charging.

I'd prefer to keep the session logic in the userspace agent (luod
https://tinyurl.com/luoddesign).

For the charging problem, I believe there's a clear path forward with
the current ioctl-based API. The design of the ioctl commands (with a
size field in each struct) is intentionally extensible. In a follow-up
patch, we can extend the liveupdate_ioctl_fd_restore struct to include
a target pid field. The luod agent, would then be able to restore an
FD on behalf of a client and instruct the kernel to charge the
associated resources to that client's PID.

This keeps the responsibilities clean: luod manages sessions and
authorization, while the kernel provides the specific mechanism for
resource attribution. I agree this is a must-have feature, but I think
it can be cleanly added on top of the current foundation.

Pasha

>
> [...]
>
> --
> Regards,
> Pratyush Yadav

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ