Re: [RFC][PATCH] introduce task cgroup (#task restrictioon for prevent fork bomb by cgroup)

From: KOSAKI Motohiro
Date: Sat Jun 07 2008 - 02:47:11 EST


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.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/