linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv12 1/3] rdmacg: Added rdma cgroup controller

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 11 Sep 2016 10:40:33 +0300
From:   Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Parav Pandit <pandit.parav@...il.com>
CC:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Liran Liss <liranl@...lanox.com>,
        "Hefty, Sean" <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
        Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
        <serge@...lyn.com>, Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv12 1/3] rdmacg: Added rdma cgroup controller

On 10/09/2016 19:12, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 01:25:13PM +0530, Parav Pandit wrote:
>>>  a) delay cgroups support until the grand rewrite is done
>>>  b) add it now and deal with the consequences later
>>>
>> Can we do (b) now and differ adding any HW resources to cgroup until
>> they are clearly called out.
>> Architecture and APIs are already in place to support this.
>
> Sounds fine to me.  The only thing I want to avoid is pie in the
> sky "future proofing" that leads to horrible architectures.  And I assume
> that's what Matan proposed.
>

NO, that not what I proposed. User-kernel API/ABI should be designed 
with drivers differences in mind. The internal design or internals APIs 
could ignore such things as they can be changed later.