netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] tcp buffer limitation: per-cgroup limit

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: <4E7DDB82.3030802@parallels.com>
Date:	Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:30:42 -0300
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <paul@...lmenage.org>,
	<lizf@...fujitsu.com>, <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	<ebiederm@...ssion.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<kirill@...temov.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] tcp buffer limitation: per-cgroup limit

On 09/22/2011 03:01 AM, Greg Thelen wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Glauber Costa<glommer@...allels.com>  wrote:
>> +static inline bool mem_cgroup_is_root(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
>> +{
>> +       return (mem == root_mem_cgroup);
>> +}
>> +
>
> Why are you adding a copy of mem_cgroup_is_root().  I see one already
> in v3.0.  Was it deleted in a previous patch?

Already answered by another good samaritan.

>> +static int tcp_write_maxmem(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft, u64 val)
>> +{
>> +       struct mem_cgroup *sg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
>> +       struct mem_cgroup *parent = parent_mem_cgroup(sg);
>> +       struct net *net = current->nsproxy->net_ns;
>> +       int i;
>> +
>> +       if (!cgroup_lock_live_group(cgrp))
>> +               return -ENODEV;
>
> Why is cgroup_lock_live_cgroup() needed here?  Does it protect updates
> to sg->tcp_prot_mem[*]?
>
>> +static u64 tcp_read_maxmem(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft)
>> +{
>> +       struct mem_cgroup *sg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
>> +       u64 ret;
>> +
>> +       if (!cgroup_lock_live_group(cgrp))
>> +               return -ENODEV;
>
> Why is cgroup_lock_live_cgroup() needed here?  Does it protect updates
> to sg->tcp_max_memory?

No, that is not my understanding. My understanding is this lock is 
needed to protect against the cgroup just disappearing under our nose.

The task reading/writing it is not necessarily inside the cgroup 
(usually it is not...), so the mere fact of opening the file does not 
guarantee the cgroup will be kept alive. So we can grab a pointer - 
cgroup exists - and write to it - cgroup does not exist.

Or am I missing something ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html