lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 3/4] cgroups: allow a cgroup subsystem to reject a fork
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 10:22:33PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> @@ -25,6 +25,19 @@
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUPS
>
> +/* define the enumeration of all cgroup subsystems */
> +enum cgroup_subsys_id {
> +#define SUBSYS(_x) _x ## _cgrp_id,
> +#define SUBSYS_TAG(_t) CGROUP_ ## _t, \
> + __unused_tag_ ## _t = CGROUP_ ## _t - 1,
> +#include <linux/cgroup_subsys.h>
> +#undef SUBSYS_TAG
> +#undef SUBSYS
> + CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT,
> +};

It's generally a good idea to not combine code movement and
modification as it tends to obfuscate what's going on. Can you please
create a prep patch to move the chunk above?

> +#define CGROUP_PREFORK_COUNT (CGROUP_PREFORK_END - CGROUP_PREFORK_START)

Is it prefork or can_fork? Given post_fork, maybe pre_fork is a more
consistent name?

> +
> struct cgroup_root;
> struct cgroup_subsys;
> struct cgroup;
> @@ -32,7 +45,12 @@ struct cgroup;
> extern int cgroup_init_early(void);
> extern int cgroup_init(void);
> extern void cgroup_fork(struct task_struct *p);
> -extern void cgroup_post_fork(struct task_struct *p);
> +extern int cgroup_can_fork(struct task_struct *p,
> + void *ss_state[CGROUP_PREFORK_COUNT]);
> +extern void cgroup_cancel_fork(struct task_struct *p,
> + void *ss_state[CGROUP_PREFORK_COUNT]);
> +extern void cgroup_post_fork(struct task_struct *p,
> + void *old_ss_state[CGROUP_PREFORK_COUNT]);

Also, why are they named @ss_state when the param to the callbacks are
@private? Wouldn't ss_private[] be more consistent?

> @@ -945,10 +959,21 @@ struct cgroup_subsys_state *css_tryget_online_from_dir(struct dentry *dentry,
>
> struct cgroup_subsys_state;
>
> +#define CGROUP_PREFORK_COUNT 0
> +
> static inline int cgroup_init_early(void) { return 0; }
> static inline int cgroup_init(void) { return 0; }
> static inline void cgroup_fork(struct task_struct *p) {}
> -static inline void cgroup_post_fork(struct task_struct *p) {}
> +static inline int cgroup_can_fork(struct task_struct *p,
> + void *s[CGROUP_PREFORK_COUNT])
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}

Style consistency?

> +static inline void cgroup_cancel_fork(struct task_struct *p,
> + void *s[CGROUP_PREFORK_COUNT]) {}
> +static inline void cgroup_post_fork(struct task_struct *p,
> + void *s[CGROUP_PREFORK_COUNT]) {}

Why are the arguments named @s here?

> diff --git a/include/linux/cgroup_subsys.h b/include/linux/cgroup_subsys.h
> index e4a96fb..fdd3551 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cgroup_subsys.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cgroup_subsys.h
> @@ -3,6 +3,16 @@
> *
> * DO NOT ADD ANY SUBSYSTEM WITHOUT EXPLICIT ACKS FROM CGROUP MAINTAINERS.
> */
> +#ifndef SUBSYS
> +# define __TMP_SUBSYS
> +# define SUBSYS(_x)
> +#endif

Does it ever make sense to include cgroup_subsys.h w/o SUBSYS macro?

...
> + * These bitmask flags indicate whether tasks in the fork and exit paths
> + * should check for fork/exit handlers to call. This avoids us having to do
> + * extra work in the fork/exit path if a subsystems doesn't need to be
> + * called.
> */
> static int need_fork_callback __read_mostly;
> static int need_exit_callback __read_mostly;

This comment belongs to an earlier patch but need_ is a bit misnomer
at this point. Shouldn't it be more like have_fork_callback?

>
> +/* Ditto for the can_fork/cancel_fork/reapply_fork callbacks. */
> +static int need_canfork_callback __read_mostly;
> +static int need_cancelfork_callback __read_mostly;

And given that the reason we have these masks is avoiding iteration in
relatively hot paths. Does cancelfork mask make sense?

> @@ -412,7 +416,7 @@ static int notify_on_release(const struct cgroup *cgrp)
> (((ss) = cgroup_subsys[ssid]) || true); (ssid)++)
>
> /**
> - * for_each_subsys_which - filter for_each_subsys with a bitmask
> + * for_each_subsys_which - filter for_each_subsys with a subsys bitmask

Does this chunk belong to this patch?

> @@ -2078,6 +2084,18 @@ static void cgroup_task_migrate(struct cgroup *old_cgrp,
> list_move_tail(&tsk->cg_list, &new_cset->mg_tasks);
>
> /*
> + * We detach from the old_cset subsystems here. We must do this
> + * before we drop the refcount for old_cset, in order to make sure
> + * that nobody frees it underneath us.
> + */
> + for_each_e_css(css, i, old_cgrp) {
> + struct cgroup_subsys_state *old_css = old_cset->subsys[i];
> +
> + if (old_css->ss->detach)
> + old_css->ss->detach(old_css, tsk);
> + }

I don't get this. What can ->detach do that ->can_attach cannot?

> +void cgroup_cancel_fork(struct task_struct *child,
> + void *ss_state[CGROUP_PREFORK_COUNT])
> +{
> + struct cgroup_subsys *ss;
> + int i;
> +
> + for_each_subsys_which(need_cancelfork_callback, ss, i) {
> + void *state = NULL;
> +
> + if (CGROUP_PREFORK_START <= i && i < CGROUP_PREFORK_END)
> + state = ss_state[i - CGROUP_PREFORK_START];

Maybe we want a helper callback which does

if (CGROUP_PREFORK_START <= ssid && ssid < CGROUP_PREFORK_END)
return &ss_state[ssid - CGROUP_PREFORK_START];
return NULL;

> +
> + ss->cancel_fork(child, state);
> + }
> +}

> @@ -1196,6 +1196,7 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(unsigned long clone_flags,
> {
> int retval;
> struct task_struct *p;
> + void *ss_state[CGROUP_PREFORK_COUNT] = {};

Please use a name which signifies that this is for cgroups.

> @@ -1468,6 +1469,18 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(unsigned long clone_flags,
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->thread_group);
> p->task_works = NULL;
>
> +
> + /*
> + * Ensure that the cgroup subsystem policies allow the new process to be
> + * forked. If this fork is happening in an organization operation, then
> + * this will not charge the correct css_set. This is fixed during
> + * cgroup_post_fork() (when the css_set has been updated) by undoing
> + * this operation and forcefully charging the correct css_set.
> + */

I'm not sure the above description is appropriate for copy_process().
From copy_process()'s perspective, it doesn't matter what goes on
internally and the behavior being described is pretty specific to the
way the pids controller is implemented.

Thanks.

--
tejun

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-22 18:21    [W:0.178 / U:2.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site