linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm] remove node_ prefix

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:	Thu, 22 May 2008 01:36:12 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
Cc:	"Cedric Le Goater" <clg@...ibm.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Linux Containers" <containers@...ts.osdl.org>, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] remove node_ prefix_from ns subsystem

On Thu, 22 May 2008 01:23:35 -0700 "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com> wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Andrew Morton
> <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > What the change is, why it is being made, what the user-visible
> > presentation is, what the impact upon users is, why we think it won't
> > be a problem, etc?  The stuff which should have been right there from
> > day one, before the code change was even made?
> 
> The change is that previously when cgroup_clone() was called
> (currently only from the unshare path in ns_proxy cgroup, you'd get a
> new group named "node_$pid" whereas now you'll get a group named after
> just your pid.)
> 
> The only users who would notice it are those who are using the
> ns_proxy cgroup subsystem to auto-create cgroups when namespaces are
> unshared - something of an experimental feature, which I think really
> needs more complete container/namespace support in order to be useful.
> I suspect the only users are Cedric and Serge, or maybe a few others
> on containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org. And in fact it would only be
> noticed by the users who make the assumption about how the name is
> generated, rather than getting it from the /proc/<pid>/cgroups file
> for the process in question.
> 
> Whether the change is actually needed or not I'm fairly agnostic on,
> but I guess it is more elegant to just use the pid as the new group
> name rather than adding a fairly arbitrary "node_" prefix on the
> front.
> 

Well I suppose that as a non-back-compatible change we should feed it
into 2.6.25.x as well.  It's a bit unusual, but so doing will reduce the
number of hey-where-did-my-file-go discoveries.
--
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/