Re: [PATCH 08/12] cgroups: Pull up res counter charge failureinterpretation to caller

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 15:33:20 +0200 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 03:26:50PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue,  6 Sep 2011 02:13:02 +0200
> > Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > res_counter_charge() always returns -ENOMEM when the limit is reached
> > > and the charge thus can't happen.
> > > 
> > > However it's up to the caller to interpret this failure and return
> > > the appropriate error value. The task counter subsystem will need
> > > to report the user that a fork() has been cancelled because of some
> > > limit reached, not because we are too short on memory.
> > > 
> > > Fix this by returning -1 when res_counter_charge() fails.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Paul Menage <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Aditya Kali <adityakali@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@xxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/res_counter.c |    2 +-
> > >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/res_counter.c b/kernel/res_counter.c
> > > index 4aaa790..45fa6fb 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/res_counter.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/res_counter.c
> > > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ int res_counter_charge_locked(struct res_counter *counter, unsigned long val)
> > >  {
> > >  	if (counter->usage + val > counter->limit) {
> > >  		counter->failcnt++;
> > > -		return -ENOMEM;
> > > +		return -1;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > >  	counter->usage += val;
> > 
> > This also affects the return value of your new and undocumented
> > res_counter_charge_until().
> > 
> > That's a bit of a hand-grenade which could lead to system calls
> > returning -1 (ie: EPERM) to userspace.
> 
> Right. What about making it a boolean?

mmm, not sure.  0/-1 is a reasonable return value for a function which
either did or didn't succeed.  Adding appropriate interface
documentation is a way of reducing the opportunity for making this mistake.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/