[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1235390396.4645.87.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:59:56 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Corey Hickey <bugfood-ml@...ooh.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: RT scheduling and a way to make a process hang, unkillable
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 17:15 +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:15:39PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 15:45 +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> >
> > > sched: Don't allow setuid to succeed if the user does not have rt bandwidth
> > >
> > > Corey Hickey reported that on using setuid to change the uid of a
> > > rt process, the process would be unkillable and not be running.
> > > This is because there was no rt runtime for that user group. Add
> > > in a check to see if a user can attach an rt task to its task group.
> >
> > This looks good to me.
> >
> > Does anybody object to the -ENOSPC return value? Should we introduce
> > -ENOTIME for that?
> >
> > Michael, Alan?
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> Any comments on which return value to return? Should we introduce
> -ENOTIME?
>
> Corey mentioned he found ENOSPC confusing.
I'd say go for the ENOTIME thing.
--
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