linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] Container Freezer: Reuse Suspend Freezer

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]

Message-Id: <20080710094231.58d9e1b9.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:42:31 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Container Freezer: Reuse Suspend Freezer

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:58:43 -0700
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com> wrote:

> 
> On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 13:07 -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> One is to try and disallow users from moving frozen tasks. That doesn't
> > >> seem like a good approach since it would require a new cgroups interface
> > >> "can_detach()".
> > >
> > > Detaching from the old cgroup happens at the same time as attaching to
> > > the new cgroup, so can_attach() would work here.
> 
> Update: I've made a patch implementing this. However it might be better
> to just modify attach() to thaw the moving task rather than disallow
> moving the frozen task. Serge, Cedric, Kame-san, do you have any
> thoughts on which is more useful and/or intuitive?
> 

Thank you for explanation in previous mail.

Hmm, just thawing seems atractive but it will confuse people (I think).

I think some kind of process-group is freezed by this freezer and "moving
freezed task" is wrong(unexpected) operation in general.  And there will
be no demand to do that from users.
I think just taking "moving freezed task" as error-operation and returning
-EBUSY is better.

Thanks,
-Kame

> > And the whole can_attach()/attach() protocol needs reworking anyway,
> > see my email (hopefully) later today.
> > 
> > Paul
> 
> Interesting. I look forward to seeing this.
> 
> Cheers,
> 	-Matt
> 
> 

--
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/