[Devel] IPC NS tests ?

2007-04-12 Thread sukadev
Kirill, We are working on getting a few UTS namespace tests included in Linux Testsuite Project (LTP) and were wondering if you (or anyone else) had any test cases for IPC namespace. If there are tests for IPC NS, can you share those tests with us ? And, do you have any plans to push the tests

[Devel] Re: IPC NS tests ?

2007-04-12 Thread Kirill Korotaev
Kirill, We are working on getting a few UTS namespace tests included in Linux Testsuite Project (LTP) and were wondering if you (or anyone else) had any test cases for IPC namespace. If there are tests for IPC NS, can you share those tests with us ? And, do you have any plans to push

[Devel] Re: IPC NS tests ?

2007-04-12 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Kirill Korotaev ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Kirill, We are working on getting a few UTS namespace tests included in Linux Testsuite Project (LTP) and were wondering if you (or anyone else) had any test cases for IPC namespace. If there are tests for IPC NS, can you share those

[Devel] Re: [PATCH] Cpu statistics accounting based on Paul Menage patches

2007-04-12 Thread Pavel Emelianov
Andrew Morton wrote: On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:02:27 +0400 Pavel Emelianov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Provides a per-container statistics concerning the numbers of tasks in various states, system and user times, etc. Patch is inspired by Paul's example of the used CPU time accounting. Although

[Devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH] rename 'struct pid'

2007-04-12 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 14:54 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: When someone mentions a pid which side of the above statement are you thinking of the left hand side or the right hand side. The type or the variable name. Traditionally, I think of a pid as

[Devel] [patch 00/10] (resend) mount ownership and unprivileged mount syscall

2007-04-12 Thread Miklos Szeredi
This patchset adds support for keeping mount ownership information in the kernel, and allow unprivileged mount(2) and umount(2) in certain cases. This can be useful for the following reasons: - mount(8) can store ownership (user=XY option) in the kernel instead, or in addition to storing it in

[Devel] [patch 04/10] add permit user mounts flag to namespaces

2007-04-12 Thread Miklos Szeredi
From: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] If MNT_NS_PERMIT_USERMOUNTS flag is not set for the current namespace, then unprivileged mounts will be denied. By default this flag is cleared in all namespaces. Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Index: linux/fs/namespace.c

[Devel] [patch 01/10] add user mounts to the kernel

2007-04-12 Thread Miklos Szeredi
From: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Add ownership information to mounts. A new mount flag, MS_SETUSER is used to make a mount owned by a user. If this flag is specified, then the owner will be set to the current real user id and the mount will be marked with the MNT_USER flag. On remount

[Devel] [patch 02/10] allow unprivileged umount

2007-04-12 Thread Miklos Szeredi
From: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] The owner doesn't need sysadmin capabilities to call umount(). Similar behavior as umount(8) on mounts having user=UID option in /etc/mtab. The difference is that umount also checks /etc/fstab, presumably to exclude another mount on the same mountpoint.

[Devel] [patch 05/10] add permit user mounts in new namespace clone flag

2007-04-12 Thread Miklos Szeredi
From: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] If CLONE_NEWNS and CLONE_NEWNS_USERMNT are given to clone(2) or unshare(2), then allow user mounts within the new namespace. This is not flexible enough, because user mounts can't be enabled for the initial namespace. The remaining clone bits also getting

[Devel] [patch 03/10] account user mounts

2007-04-12 Thread Miklos Szeredi
From: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Add sysctl variables for accounting and limiting the number of user mounts. The maximum number of user mounts is set to 1024 by default. This won't in itself enable user mounts, setting the permit user mount in namespace flag will also be needed.

[Devel] [patch 06/10] propagate error values from clone_mnt

2007-04-12 Thread Miklos Szeredi
From: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Allow clone_mnt() to return errors other than ENOMEM. This will be used for returning a different error value when the number of user mounts goes over the limit. Fix copy_tree() to return EPERM for unbindable mounts. Don't propagate further from

[Devel] [patch 07/10] allow unprivileged bind mounts

2007-04-12 Thread Miklos Szeredi
From: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Allow bind mounts to unprivileged users if the following conditions are met: - user mounts are permitted in the current mount namespace - mountpoint is not a symlink or special file - mountpoint is not a sticky directory or is owned by the current

[Devel] [patch 08/10] put declaration of put_filesystem() in fs.h

2007-04-12 Thread Miklos Szeredi
From: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Declarations go into headers. Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Index: linux/fs/super.c === --- linux.orig/fs/super.c 2007-04-12 13:26:42.0 +0200 +++

[Devel] [patch 09/10] allow unprivileged mounts

2007-04-12 Thread Miklos Szeredi
From: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem. Since most filesystems haven't been designed with unprivileged mounting in mind, a thorough audit is needed before setting this

[Devel] [patch 10/10] allow unprivileged fuse mounts

2007-04-12 Thread Miklos Szeredi
From: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use FS_SAFE for fuse fs type, but not for fuseblk. FUSE was designed from the beginning to be safe for unprivileged users. This has also been verified in practice over many years. And unprivileged fuse mounts still require a private namespace with user

[Devel] [RFC | PATCH 0/9] CPU controller over process container

2007-04-12 Thread Srivatsa Vaddagiri
Here's a respin of my earlier CPU controller to work on top of Paul Menage's process container patches. Problem: Current CPU scheduler is very task centric, which makes it difficult to manage cpu resource consumption of a group of (related) tasks. For ex: with

[Devel] [PATCH 1/9] split runqueue

2007-04-12 Thread Srivatsa Vaddagiri
This patch introduces a new runqueue structure (struct task_grp_rq) which is used to hold related tasks together. The structure is quite similar to how the runqueue structure looks today. The scheme is every task group will have its own per-cpu runqueues (which is of type 'struct

[Devel] [PATCH 2/9] task group priority handling

2007-04-12 Thread Srivatsa Vaddagiri
To retain good interactivity, priority of a task-group is defined to be the same as the priority of the highest-priority runnable task it has in its runqueue. This means as tasks come and go, priority of a task-group can change. This patch deals with such changes to task-group priority. P.S :

[Devel] [PATCH 4/9] define group operations

2007-04-12 Thread Srivatsa Vaddagiri
Define these operations for a task-group: - create new group - destroy existing group - set bandwidth (quota) for a group - get bandwidth (quota) of a group Signed-off-by : Srivatsa Vaddagiri [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 file changed, 71 insertions(+) --- diff -puN

[Devel] [PATCH 5/9] deal with movement of tasks across groups

2007-04-12 Thread Srivatsa Vaddagiri
When a task moves between groups (as initiated by an administrator), it has to be removed from the runqueue of its old group and added to the runqueue of its new group. This patch defines this move operation. Signed-off-by : Srivatsa Vaddagiri [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 file changed, 28

[Devel] [PATCH 6/9] Handle dont care groups

2007-04-12 Thread Srivatsa Vaddagiri
Deal with task-groups whose bandwidth hasnt been explicitly set by the administrator. Unallocated CPU bandwidth is equally distributed among such don't care groups. Signed-off-by : Srivatsa Vaddagiri [EMAIL PROTECTED] linux-2.6.18-root/include/linux/sched.h |2 --- 1 file changed, 91

[Devel] [PATCH 8/9] task_cpu(p) needs to be correct always

2007-04-12 Thread Srivatsa Vaddagiri
We rely very much on task_cpu(p) to be correct at all times, so that we can correctly find the task_grp_rq from which the task has to be removed or added to. There is however one place in the scheduler where this assumption of task_cpu(p) being correct is broken. This patch fixes that piece of

[Devel] [PATCH 9/9] Interface with process container patchset

2007-04-12 Thread Srivatsa Vaddagiri
This patch registers cpu controller as a subsystem in process container patches. How to use the controller: 1. Apply these patches first on top of 2.6.20 kernel http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/6/301 http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/6/300

[Devel] Re: [RFC | PATCH 0/9] CPU controller over process container

2007-04-12 Thread Herbert Poetzl
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 11:21:11PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: Here's a respin of my earlier CPU controller to work on top of Paul Menage's process container patches. Problem: Current CPU scheduler is very task centric, which makes it difficult to manage cpu resource

[Devel] Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC | PATCH 0/9] CPU controller over process container

2007-04-12 Thread Srivatsa Vaddagiri
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 11:21:11PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: - Real-time tasks - Should be left alone as they are today? i.e real time tasks across groups should be scheduled as if they are in same group This patchset doesnt handle this requirement (yet). Will

[Devel] Re: [RFC | PATCH 0/9] CPU controller over process container

2007-04-12 Thread Srivatsa Vaddagiri
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 07:56:47PM +0200, Herbert Poetzl wrote: - Each task-group gets its own runqueue on every cpu. how does that scale for, let's say 200-300 guests on a 'typical' dual CPU machine? Scheduling complexity is still O(1) and hence I would say CPU-wise, it should be

[Devel] Re: [patch 05/10] add permit user mounts in new namespace clone flag

2007-04-12 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): From: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] If CLONE_NEWNS and CLONE_NEWNS_USERMNT are given to clone(2) or unshare(2), then allow user mounts within the new namespace. This is not flexible enough, because user mounts can't be enabled for the initial

[Devel] Re: [PATCH] Cpu statistics accounting based on Paul Menage patches

2007-04-12 Thread Balbir Singh
Andrew Morton wrote: On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:02:27 +0400 Pavel Emelianov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Provides a per-container statistics concerning the numbers of tasks in various states, system and user times, etc. Patch is inspired by Paul's example of the used CPU time accounting. Although this

[Devel] patch kobject-comment-and-warning-fixes-to-kobject.c.patch added to gregkh-2.6 tree

2007-04-12 Thread gregkh
This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled Subject: kobject: Comment and warning fixes to kobject.c to my gregkh-2.6 tree. Its filename is kobject-comment-and-warning-fixes-to-kobject.c.patch This tree can be found at

[Devel] Re: [patch 05/10] add permit user mounts in new namespace clone flag

2007-04-12 Thread Herbert Poetzl
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 03:32:08PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): From: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] If CLONE_NEWNS and CLONE_NEWNS_USERMNT are given to clone(2) or unshare(2), then allow user mounts within the new namespace. This is not