Hello Tejun, Alexei,
On 3/28/24 22:01, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 01:45:56PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 1:02 PM Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> There's also cgroup.kill which would be useful for similar use cases. We can
>>> add interface for both but idk. Let's say we have something like the
>>> following (pardon the bad naming):
>>>
Yes having the cgroup.kill from bpf would be useful!
>>> bpf_cgroup_knob_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, char *filename, char *buf)
>>>
>>> Would that work? I'm not necessarily in love with the idea or against adding
>>> separate helpers but the duplication still bothers me a bit.
>>
>> I liked it.
>> So filename will be one of cgroup_base_files[].name ?
>> We probably don't want psi or cgroup1_base_files in there.
>
> Would it matter? If the user has root perm, they can do whatever with the
> files anyway, so I'm not sure why we'd restrict any specific knob. Maybe we
> wanna make sure @filename doesn't include '/'? Or is it that you don't want
> to go through the usual file name look up?
It would be easy at least for me if I just start with cgroupv2 and
ensure that it has same available filenames as if we go through kernfs.
Not a root cgroup node and maybe only freeze and kill for now that are
part of cgroup_base_files.
So if I get it right, somehow like what I did but we endup with:
In bpf, cgroup was already acquired.
bpf_cgroup_knob_write(cgroup, "freeze", buf)
|_ parse params -> lock cgroup_mutex -> cgroup_freeze() -> unlock
cgroup_freeze_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *buf,...)
|_ parse params -> cgroup_ref++ -> krnfs_active_ref-- ->
-> lock cgroup_mutex -> cgroup_freeze() -> unlock + krnfs++ ...
Please let me know if I missed something.
Thanks!
