linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 02/23] bpf: initial support for attaching struct ops to cgroups

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: <aQKGrqAf2iKZQD_q@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 11:27:10 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
	JP Kobryn <inwardvessel@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>,
	Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/23] bpf: initial support for attaching struct ops
 to cgroups

Hello,

On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 02:18:00PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
...
> How about we pass a pointer to mem_cgroup (and/or related pointers)
> to all the callbacks in the struct_ops? AFAICT, in-kernel _ops structures like
> struct file_operations and struct tcp_congestion_ops use this method. And
> we can actually implement struct tcp_congestion_ops in BPF. With the
> struct tcp_congestion_ops model, the struct_ops map and the struct_ops
> link are both shared among multiple instances (sockets).
> 
> With this model, the system admin with root access can load a bunch of
> available oom handlers, and users in their container can pick a preferred
> oom handler for the sub cgroup. AFAICT, the users in the container can
> pick the proper OOM handler without CAP_BPF. Does this sound useful
> for some cases?

Doesn't that assume that the programs are more or less stateless? Wouldn't
oom handlers want to track historical information, running averages, which
process expanded the most and so on?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun