lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [BUG] Bug in netprio_cgroup and netcls_cgroup ?
On 01/21/2013 01:57 AM, Li Zefan wrote:
> On 2013/1/21 17:27, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>> On 21.01.2013 10:01, Li Zefan wrote:
>>> On 2013/1/21 16:50, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>>>> Hi Li,
>>>>
>>>> On 21.01.2013 07:08, Li Zefan wrote:
>>>>> I'm not a network developer, so correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since commit 7955490f732c2b8
>>>>> ("net: netprio_cgroup: rework update socket logic"), sock->sk->sk_cgrp_prioidx
>>>>> is set when the socket is created, and won't be updated unless the task is
>>>>> moved to another cgroup.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the problem is, a socket can be _shared_ by multiple processes (fork, SCM_RIGHT).
>>>>> If we place those processes in different cgroups, and each cgroup has
>>>>> different configs, but all of the processes will send data via this socket
>>>>> with the same network priority.
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't that be addressed by 48a87cc26c13b68f6cce4e9d769fcb17a6b3e4b8
>>>>
>>>> net: netprio: fd passed in SCM_RIGHTS datagram not set correctly
>>>>
>>>> A socket fd passed in a SCM_RIGHTS datagram was not getting
>>>> updated with the new tasks cgrp prioidx. This leaves IO on
>>>> the socket tagged with the old tasks priority.
>>>>
>>>> To fix this add a check in the scm recvmsg path to update the
>>>> sock cgrp prioidx with the new tasks value.
>>>>
>>>> As I read this this should work for net_prio.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But after process A passed the socket fd to B, both A and B can use the
>>> same socket to send data, right? Then if A and B were placed in different
>>> cgroups with differnt configs, A's config won't take effect anymore.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something?
>>
>> I don't know. I guess at one point the socket resources are shared and then
>> one configuration is taking preference. As you can see I am far away of
>> being
>> an expert in this field. Hopefully someone who understands this bits
>> can chip in.
>>
>> BTW, isn't this a similar to what should happen with the block io cgroup?
>> What is the behavior with a fd writing to a file in the scenario you
>> describe above?
>>
>
> It forbids task moving in this case:
>
> /*
> * We cannot support shared io contexts, as we have no mean to support
> * two tasks with the same ioc in two different groups without major rework
> * of the main cic data structures. For now we allow a task to change
> * its cgroup only if it's the only owner of its ioc.
> */
> static int blkcg_can_attach(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cgroup_taskset *tset)
>

OK, I guess we should do something similar in the netprio, netcls
cgroups and
yes document it as you noted in your last comment.

Thanks,
John

--
John Fastabend Intel Corporation


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-21 19:02    [W:0.055 / U:8.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site