linux-kernel - Re: cgroup mount point

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: <20090204011804.08f2b35a@sbs173>
Date:	Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:18:04 +0100
From:	Harald Braumann <harry@...eit.net>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc:	sean finney <seanius@...nius.net>,
	Gustavo Noronha <kov@...ian.org>,
	debian-devel@...ts.debian.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cgroup mount point

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:40:39 -0800
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Harald Braumann <harry@...eit.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > So, what's the problem with /dev/cgroups then? If shm/ and pts/
> > are allowed under /dev, wouldn't it be discriminating against
> > cgroups/, to not allow it there?
> 
> Right, that's what I proposed a couple of emails earlier in this
> thread.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you'd be against it, on the contrary,
I took your explanation as another argument for using /dev and
against /sys (/cgroups should not even be considered, IMHO). 

The question was targeted at those, who oppose it.

Cheers,
harry


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)