Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 01 Mar 2012 23:53:24 +0100 | From | Daniel Lezcano <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/10] cgroups: Task counter subsystem v8 |
| |
On 02/02/2012 03:50 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 11:51:07AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 19:50:01 +0100 >> Frederic Weisbecker<fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 08:31:26AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: >>>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 04:37:40AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: >>>>> Changes In this version: >>>>> >>>>> - Split 32/64 bits version of res_counter_write_u64() [1/10] >>>>> Courtesy of Kirill A. Shutemov >>>>> >>>>> - Added Kirill's ack [8/10] >>>>> >>>>> - Added selftests [9/10], [10/10] >>>>> >>>>> Please consider for merging. At least two users want this feature: >>>> Has there been further discussion about this approach? IIRC, we >>>> weren't sure whether this should be merged. >>> The doubts I have noticed were: >>> >>> Q: Can't we rather focus on a global solution to fight forkbombs? >>> >>> If we can find a reliable solution that works in any case and that >>> prevent from any forkbomb to impact the rest of the system then it >>> may be an acceptable solution. But I'm not aware of such feature. >>> >>> Besides, another point in having this task counter is that we >>> have a per container limit. Assuming all containers are running under >>> the same user, we can protect against a container starving all others >>> with a massive amount of processes close to the NR_PROC rlimit. >>> >>> Q: Can/should we implement a limitation on the number of "fork" as well? >>> (as in https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/11/3/233 ) >>> >>> I'm still not sure about why such a thing is needed. Is it really something we >>> want? Why can't the task counter be used instead? >>> >>> I need more details from the author of this patch. But I doubt we can merge >>> both subsystems, they have pretty different semantics. >> What I struggle with is "is this feature useful enough to warrant >> merging it"? > The reason why I've been working on it is because we need this feature > (at least) for LXC.
This feature is a recurrent request from the users of LXC. Recently, a container administrator complained an user was able to crash the entire host from a container.
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28915923
This feature is really useful to make the containers secure.
-- Daniel
> > Two people from our teams have jumped onto the discussion to express > that they want this feature and why: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/13/309 > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/13/364 > _______________________________________________ > Containers mailing list > Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers >
| |