[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830808251755h645b94abh551da5ec64cb3999@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:55:55 -0700
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To: righiandr@...rs.sourceforge.net
Cc: "Vivek Goyal" <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
"KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
"Balbir Singh" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linux kernel mailing list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Dhaval Giani" <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Kazunaga Ikeno" <k-ikeno@...jp.nec.com>,
"Morton Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Thomas Graf" <tgraf@...hat.com>,
"Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH -mm] cgroup: uid-based rules to add processes efficiently in the right cgroup
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:12 AM, <righi.andrea@...il.com> wrote:
>
> unfortunately I don't have too much details for now, so I was just
> looking for the most generic solution. The PAM lib approach seems
> reasonable for each daemon that represents an entry point to the
> system,
The PAM approach seems like the cleanest solution to me.
>
>> due to their "magical" nature - any task that does a setuid() now
>> risks being swept off into a different cgroup.
>
> If the admin configures so, moving tasks that do setuid() in different
> cgroups should be an expected behaviour, isn't it?
Is the sysadmin aware of all the places in all system daemons that do
setuid() calls?
Paul
--
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