| 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: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:01:05 -0800 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de> Cc: serge.hallyn@...onical.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, nhorman@...driver.com, tgraf@...g.ch, davem@...emloft.net, lizefan@...wei.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHSET cgroup/for-3.8] netcls_cgroup: implement hierarchy support Hello, Daniel. On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 02:59:58PM +0100, Daniel Wagner wrote: > Sorry to bring this up again: how should to root cgroup behave? If > the ultimate goal to have only one single hierarchy then I would > assume it is important that the semantic for all controllers are the > same. As you pointed out the networking controllers are kind of a > strange beast in the zoo of the cgroup controllers. But still I > would assume that all root controllers behave the same. memcg or > cpu* are not expected to do any work in the root cgroup. I think the implemented behavior is fine. memcg or cpu* don't do anything on root cgroup as it doesn't make much (or any) sense. For net_prio and cls, I don't see any reason to treat root cgroup differently and how that would cause conflict when mounted together with other controllers. So, yeah, things seem okay to me. 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