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: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:28:35 -0600 From: serge@...lyn.com To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> Cc: Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] Prefixing cgroup generic control filenames with "cgroup." Quoting Paul Menage (menage@...gle.com): > All control files created by cgroup subsystems are given a prefix > corresponding to their subsystem name. But control files provided by > cgroups itself have no prefix. Currently that set of files is just > "tasks", "notify_on_release" and "release_agent", but that set is > likely to expand in the future. To reduce the risk of clashes, it > would make sense to prefix these files and any future ones with the > "cgroup." prefix. > > The only reason that I can see *not* to do this would be for > compatibility with 2.6.24. Do people think this is a strong enough > reason to leave the existing names? If distros are planning to ship > products based on 2.6.24, presumably they'd be adding their own > patches anyway, so they could add a trivial prefix change patch too. > (I realise this discussion would have been more useful *before* 2.6.24 > shipped, but I didn't quite get round to it ...) > > A compromise might be to keep "tasks" unprefixed, and say that future > names get the "cgroup." prefix; in this case I'd be inclined to add > the prefix to notify_on_release and release_agent on the grounds that > there's much less chance of breaking anyone with those files since (I > suspect) they're much less used. > > Note that if you mount a cgroup filesystem with the "noprefix" option, > which is what the cpuset filesystem wrapper does, no subsystems have > prefixes, and in this case the "cgroup." prefix wouldn't be used > either. So this doesn't affect any users that explicitly mount cpusets > rather than cgroups. > > Thoughts? To me it seems quite logical that files belonging to the cgroup subsystem would have no prefix, and I don't see any good reason to do so. -serge -- 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