On 7/15/21 8:11 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:51 PM Vasily Averin [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

OpenVZ uses memory accounting 20+ years since v2.2.x linux kernels.
Initially we used our own accounting subsystem, then partially committed
it to upstream, and a few years ago switched to cgroups v1.
Now we're rebasing again, revising our old patches and trying to push
them upstream.

We try to protect the host system from any misuse of kernel memory
allocation triggered by untrusted users inside the containers.

Patch-set is addressed mostly to cgroups maintainers and cgroups@ mailing
list, though I would be very grateful for any comments from maintainersi
of affected subsystems or other people added in cc:

Compared to the upstream, we additionally account the following kernel objects:
- network devices and its Tx/Rx queues
- ipv4/v6 addresses and routing-related objects
- inet_bind_bucket cache objects
- VLAN group arrays
- ipv6/sit: ip_tunnel_prl
- scm_fp_list objects used by SCM_RIGHTS messages of Unix sockets
- nsproxy and namespace objects itself
- IPC objects: semaphores, message queues and share memory segments
- mounts
- pollfd and select bits arrays
- signals and posix timers
- file lock
- fasync_struct used by the file lease code and driver's fasync queues
- tty objects
- per-mm LDT

We have an incorrect/incomplete/obsoleted accounting for few other kernel
objects: sk_filter, af_packets, netlink and xt_counters for iptables.
They require rework and probably will be dropped at all.

Also we're going to add an accounting for nft, however it is not ready yet.

We have not tested performance on upstream, however, our performance team
compares our current RHEL7-based production kernel and reports that
they are at least not worse as the according original RHEL7 kernel.

Hi Vasily,

What's the status of this series? I see a couple patches did get
acked/reviewed. Can you please re-send the series with updated ack
tags?

Technically my patches does not have any NAKs. Practically they are still them merged.
I've expected Michal will push it, but he advised me to push subsystem maintainers.
I've asked Tejun to pick up the whole patch set and I'm waiting for his feedback right now.

I can resend patch set once again, with collected approval and with rebase to v5.14-rc1.
However I do not understand how it helps to push them if patches should be processed through
subsystem maintainers. As far as I understand I'll need to split this patch set into
per-subsystem pieces and sent them to corresponded maintainers.

Thank you,
	Vasily Averin.