Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters

Arjan van de Ven
2006-08-22T10:01:21Z

On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 11:02 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Llu, 2006-08-21 am 18:45 -0700, ysgrifennodd Rohit Seth:
> > I think as the tasks move around, it becomes very heavy to move all the
> > pages belonging to previous container to a new container.
>
> Its not a meaningful thing to do. Remember an object may be passed
> around or shared. The simple "creator pays" model avoids all the heavy
> overheads while maintaining the constraints.

Hi,

there is one issue with the "creator pays" model: if the creator can
decide to die/go away/respawn then you can create orphan resources. This
is a leak at least, but if a malicious user can control the
death/respawn cycle it can even be abused to bypass the controls in the
first place. Keeping the owner alive until all shared users are gone is
not always a good idea either; if a container significantly malfunctions
(or requires a restart due to, say, a very urgent glibc security
update), keeping it around anyway is not a valid option for the admin.
(And it forms another opportunity for a malicious user, keep a
(vulnerable) container alive by hanging on to a shared resource
deliberately)

A general "unshare me out" function that finds a new to-blame owner
might work, just the decision whom to blame is not an easy one in that
scenario.

Greetings,
Arjan van de Ven

--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com