[Devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH] introduce task cgroup (#task restrictioon for prevent fork bomb by cgroup)
KOSAKI Motohiro
kosaki.motohiro at jp.fujitsu.com
Fri Jun 6 23:46:56 PDT 2008
Hi
> Hi Kosaki,
>
> The basic idea of a task-limiting subsystem is good, thanks.
Thanks.
> > -void cgroup_fork(struct task_struct *child)
> > +int cgroup_fork(struct task_struct *child)
> > {
> > + int i;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT; i++) {
> > + struct cgroup_subsys *ss = subsys[i];
> > + if (ss->can_fork) {
> > + ret = ss->can_fork(ss, child);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > task_lock(current);
> > child->cgroups = current->cgroups;
> > get_css_set(child->cgroups);
> > task_unlock(current);
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&child->cg_list);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > }
>
> I don't think this is the right way to handle this check. This isn't a
> generic control groups callback, it's one that specific for a
> particular subsystem. So the right way to handle it is to call
> task_cgroup_can_fork() from the same place that the RLIM_NPROC limit
> is checked.
>
> If it later turned out that multiple cgroup subsystems wanted to be
> able to prevent forking, then it might make sense to have a generic
> cgroup callback, but for just one subsystem it's cleaner to call
> directly.
OK.
> > +static int task_cgroup_populate(struct cgroup_subsys *ss,
> > + struct cgroup *cgrp)
> > +{
> > + if (task_cgroup_subsys.disabled)
> > + return 0;
>
> I don't think you should need this check - if the subsystem is
> disabled, it'll never be mounted in the first place.
to be honest, I did copy&past it from memcontrol.c ;)
Thanks good opinion.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
More information about the Devel
mailing list