| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20080815193132.GE11844@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 01:01:32 +0530 From: Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: menage@...gle.com, pj@....com Cc: danms@...ibm.com, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, libcg-devel <libcg-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net> Subject: Default values for cpuset.mems, cpus for children created Hi, While playing around with libcgroup, one of the isses hit was that attaching a task failed. Looking deeper into it, cpusets had been mounted along with other subsystems. And since we did not care about cpusets, we did not set cpus and mems there. Now an application programmer does not really care where and how subsystems are mounted (or at least that is what libcgroup aims to achieve :-) ). And such a scenario when the cpuset has not been handled is going to lead to failures which a user is not expecting. To work around this, I am making a change which will just set the values which the parent group has for unfilled values, but I can already see cpuset breaking that assumption as well. (for example exclusive cpusets). I was wondering, why can we not have some sane default values set for cpus and mems when a group is created. (That will also avoid a lot of heartbreak for me as well :-) ) (Or if you have some sane solution that has not hit me yet, i am all ears) Thanks, -- regards, Dhaval -- 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