| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:25:19 -0700 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> Cc: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, axboe@...nel.dk, ctalbott@...gle.com, rni@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, fengguang.wu@...el.com, hughd@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] blkcg: implement per-blkg request allocation Hello, On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:21:10PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > For non-priviliged users, something along the lines of per session > cpu autogroup might make sense. But even then if some IO is submitted > from that autoblkgroup, kernel can't claim that memory till IO is > completed. > > So per cgroup number of request will probably be a problem even if > kenrel managed those completely. My point was that trying to solve all the policy decisions in kernel proper is not a very good idea. > So are you planning to put a patch in kernel to disallow cgroup creation > for non-priviliged users? No, I'm not gonna break the current users. It's just not the direction I want to take cgroup towards and the current breakages will remain broken. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists