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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 09:58:43 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH 3/3] memcg/tcp: ignore tcp usage before accounting started (2012/04/04 7:31), Glauber Costa wrote: > On 04/02/2012 07:41 AM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Glauber Costa<glommer@...allels.com> >> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:21:07 +0200 >> >>> On 03/29/2012 09:10 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >>>> tcp memcontrol starts accouting after res->limit is set. So, if a sockets >>>> starts before setting res->limit, there are already used resource. >>>> After setting res->limit, the resource (already used) will be uncharged and >>>> make res_counter below 0 because they are not charged. This causes warning. >>>> >>>> This patch fixes that by adding res_counter_uncharge_nowarn(). >>>> (*) We cannot avoid this while we have 'account start' switch. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> >>> >>> Fine by me. >>> >>> Acked-by: Glauber Costa<glommer@...allels.com> >> >> I'm not applying patches that simply ignore accounting counter >> underflows. >> >> You must either: >> >> 1) Integrate the socket's existing usage when the limit is set. >> >> 2) Avoid accounting completely for a socket that started before >> the limit was set. >> >> No half-way solutions, please. Otherwise it is impossible to design >> validations of the resource usage for a particular socket or group of >> sockets, because they can always be potentially "wrong" and over the >> limit. That's a design for a buggy system. >> >> > Kame, > > I agree with Dave FWIW. > > We should be able to do this by dropping the reference count when the > cgroup is finally destroyed, instead of from the remove callback. At > that point, no more pending sockets should be attached to it. > > Prior to increasing the static key, they are all assigned to the global > cgroup, so we shouldn't care about them. > Could you do the fix ? Thanks, -Kame -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists