Re: [Patch v3 0/2] cgroup: KVM: New Encryption IDs cgroup controller

[Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>]

On 09.12.20 21:58, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Rough take after skimming:
> 
> * I don't have an overall objection. In terms of behavior, the only thing
>   which stood out was input rejection depending on the current usage. The
>   preferred way of handling that is rejecting future allocations rather than
>   failing configuration as that makes it impossible e.g. to lower limit and
>   drain existing usages from outside the container.
> 
> * However, the boilerplate to usefulness ratio doesn't look too good and I
>   wonder whether what we should do is adding a generic "misc" controller
>   which can host this sort of static hierarchical counting. I'll think more
>   on it.

We first dicussed to have
encryption_ids.stat
encryption_ids.max
encryption_ids.current

and we added the sev in later, so that we can also have tdx, seid, sgx or whatever.
Maybe also 2 or more things at the same time.

Right now this code has

encryption_ids.sev.stat
encryption_ids.sev.max
encryption_ids.sev.current

And it would be trivial to extend it to have
encryption_ids.seid.stat
encryption_ids.seid.max
encryption_ids.seid.current
on s390 instead (for our secure guests).

So in the end this is almost already a misc controller, the only thing that we
need to change is the capability to also define things other than encryption.*.*
And of course we would need to avoid adding lots of random garbage to such a thing.

But if you feel ok with the burden to keep things kind of organized a misc
controller would certainly work for the encryption ID usecase as well. 
So I would be fine with the thing as is or a misc controlĺer.

Christian