From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alin Dobre Subject: Re: Protection against container fork bombs [WAS: Re: memcg with kmem limit doesn't recover after disk i/o causes limit to be hit] Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 13:18:03 +0100 Message-ID: <5396F77B.6040604@elastichosts.com> References: <20140416154650.GA3034@alpha.arachsys.com> <20140418155939.GE4523@dhcp22.suse.cz> <5351679F.5040908@parallels.com> <20140420142830.GC22077@alpha.arachsys.com> <20140422143943.20609800@oracle.com> <20140422200531.GA19334@alpha.arachsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140422200531.GA19334-2oeHp4OYwSjPZs67QiJbJtBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Richard Davies , Dwight Engen Cc: Vladimir Davydov , Daniel Walsh , Max Kellermann , Tim Hockin , Frederic Weisbecker , containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Johannes Weiner , Glauber Costa , Michal Hocko , linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, William Dauchy , David Rientjes , Tejun Heo , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On 22/04/14 21:05, Richard Davies wrote: > Dwight Engen wrote: >> Richard Davies wrote: >>> Vladimir Davydov wrote: >>>> In short, kmem limiting for memory cgroups is currently broken. Do >>>> not use it. We are working on making it usable though. > ... >>> What is the best mechanism available today, until kmem limits mature? >>> >>> RLIMIT_NPROC exists but is per-user, not per-container. >>> >>> Perhaps there is an up-to-date task counter patchset or similar? >> >> I updated Frederic's task counter patches and included Max Kellermann's >> fork limiter here: >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.containers/27212 >> >> I can send you a more recent patchset (against 3.13.10) if you would >> find it useful. > > Yes please, I would be interested in that. Ideally even against 3.14.1 if > you have that too. Any chance for a 3.15 rebase, since the changes from cgroup_fork() makes the operation no longer trivial. Cheers, Alin.