Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:43:16 +0200
From:   Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cpuset: Allow setscheduler regardless of manipulated
 task
Message-ID: <20220624124316.GH16004@blackbody.suse.cz>
References: <20220623124944.2753-1-mkoutny@suse.com>
 <ab4bcd51-83c5-ae21-ddf6-607a31a7d6ac@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GpGaEY17fSl8rd50"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ab4bcd51-83c5-ae21-ddf6-607a31a7d6ac@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk


--GpGaEY17fSl8rd50
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 02:44:33PM -0400, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
> That could be an issue.

The way how I understand here is that the privileged process isn't part
of contrained workload (if it were then, it can modify cpuset itself)
like debugging or tracing a code within a container entered by the
admin. The bypass could not be used to setscheduler (via migration) of
an arbitrary process.

> What do you mean by nothing effectively changes?

It's a freshly created child (after cpuset_css_online()), so it inherits
parent's attributes, so the migration from the parent to this child
doesn't affect CPU affinity etc.

> Since the check is done on a taskset level, if only one of the tasks in the
> taskset fails, the whole taskset fails. Maybe we should consider an option
> for task based migration. So all the tasks that can be migrated will be
> migrated and the rests will be left behind in the original cpuset.

Hm, I haven't thought about that. That might be in theory possible for
threaded controllers (like cpuset) but I imagine it'd a bit messy, in
particular for these implicit migrations upon controller enablement.

Thanks,
Michal

--GpGaEY17fSl8rd50
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEARYIAB0WIQTrXXag4J0QvXXBmkMkDQmsBEOquQUCYrWxYgAKCRAkDQmsBEOq
uSK7AQDxSD0tP0e4c1MlmPs3gy70GRGHcWnbPa9H+VtXGrwCtgEA3seoFthswxlF
BlkMXOCW5rIUwjXRGQ/9u+FKiUXulg8=
=Q3D5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--GpGaEY17fSl8rd50--