Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 1 Aug 2011 16:19:00 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/8 v3] cgroups: Task counter subsystem (was: New max number of tasks subsystem) |
| |
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:13:22 +0200 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> Reminder: > > This patchset is aimed at reducing the impact of a forkbomb to a > cgroup boundaries, thus minimizing the consequences of such an attack > against the rest of the system. > > This can be useful when cgroups are used to stage some processes or run > untrustees.
Really? How useful? Why is it useful enough to justify adding code such as this to the kernel?
Is forkbomb-prevention the only use? Others have proposed different ways of preventing forkbombs which were independent of cgroups - is this way better and if so, why?
> block/blk-cgroup.c | 10 ++- > include/linux/cgroup.h | 15 +++- > include/linux/cgroup_subsys.h | 8 ++ > include/linux/res_counter.h | 12 +++ > init/Kconfig | 7 ++ > kernel/Makefile | 1 + > kernel/cgroup.c | 25 ++++-- > kernel/cgroup_freezer.c | 3 +- > kernel/cgroup_task_counter.c | 176 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > kernel/cpuset.c | 6 +- > kernel/events/core.c | 5 +- > kernel/fork.c | 4 + > kernel/res_counter.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++--- > kernel/sched.c | 6 +-
The patch forgot to document the feature: how it works, what it's useful for, what behaviour users can expect to see, when they should consider using it, what the userspace control interface is and how to configure it, etc. Documentation/cgroups/ is the place for that.
| |