From: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
To: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>,
John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@intel.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] Bug in netprio_cgroup and netcls_cgroup ?
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:52:45 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50FD0FED.7070204@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50FD0893.1050805@gmail.com>
On 2013/1/21 17:21, John Fastabend wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 01:01 AM, Li Zefan wrote:
>> On 2013/1/21 16:50, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>>> Hi Li,
>>>
>>> On 21.01.2013 07:08, Li Zefan wrote:
>>>> I'm not a network developer, so correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Since commit 7955490f732c2b8
>>>> ("net: netprio_cgroup: rework update socket logic"), sock->sk->sk_cgrp_prioidx
>>>> is set when the socket is created, and won't be updated unless the task is
>>>> moved to another cgroup.
>>>>
>>>> Now the problem is, a socket can be _shared_ by multiple processes (fork, SCM_RIGHT).
>>>> If we place those processes in different cgroups, and each cgroup has
>>>> different configs, but all of the processes will send data via this socket
>>>> with the same network priority.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't that be addressed by 48a87cc26c13b68f6cce4e9d769fcb17a6b3e4b8
>>>
>>> net: netprio: fd passed in SCM_RIGHTS datagram not set correctly
>>>
>>> A socket fd passed in a SCM_RIGHTS datagram was not getting
>>> updated with the new tasks cgrp prioidx. This leaves IO on
>>> the socket tagged with the old tasks priority.
>>>
>>> To fix this add a check in the scm recvmsg path to update the
>>> sock cgrp prioidx with the new tasks value.
>>>
>>> As I read this this should work for net_prio.
>>>
>>
>> But after process A passed the socket fd to B, both A and B can use the
>> same socket to send data, right? Then if A and B were placed in different
>> cgroups with differnt configs, A's config won't take effect anymore.
>>
>> Am I missing something?
>>
>>
>
> Hi Zefan,
>
> Neil and I discusses this here, http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/172343/
> look towards the bottom of the thread. Quoted here.
>
So this is a known issue. Why not document this behavior in
Documentation/cgroups/netprio.txt?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-21 9:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-21 6:08 [BUG] Bug in netprio_cgroup and netcls_cgroup ? Li Zefan
2013-01-21 8:50 ` Daniel Wagner
2013-01-21 9:01 ` Li Zefan
2013-01-21 9:21 ` John Fastabend
2013-01-21 9:52 ` Li Zefan [this message]
2013-01-21 9:27 ` Daniel Wagner
2013-01-21 9:57 ` Li Zefan
2013-01-21 17:18 ` John Fastabend
2013-01-22 10:09 ` Daniel Wagner
2013-01-23 0:02 ` John Fastabend
2013-01-23 9:24 ` Daniel Wagner
2013-01-25 8:39 ` Li Zefan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=50FD0FED.7070204@huawei.com \
--to=lizefan@huawei.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=john.r.fastabend@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=wagi@monom.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox