linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] cgroup allow subsys to set default mode of its own file

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]

Date:	Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:20:31 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, menage@...gle.com,
	lizf@...fujitsu.com, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cgroup allow subsys to set default mode of its own
 file

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:00:05 -0800
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:35:55 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
> >  When I wrote tools for maintain cgroup, I can't find which file is
> >  writable intarfece or not via cgroup file systems. (finally, I did
> >  dirty approach.)
> >  IMHO, showing "this file is read-only" in explicit way is useful
> >  for user-land (tools). In other story, a file whose name sounds read-only
> >  may have "trigger" operation and support reseting. In this case,
> >  "writable" is informative.
> 
> Well, we have compatibility issues here.  If we make this change, and
> people write tools which depend upon that change then those tools might
> break when run upon older kernels.  Or they need back-compatibility
> additions, which increases the testing burden of those tools.
> 
> One way in which we could improve this situation is to backport these
> changes into earlier kernels, although I don't know which versions.
> 
> What do we think?
> 
It sounds problem to me.

Hmm..1st commit to kernel/cgroup.c is 2007-10-19, then 2.6.24 is the oldest one.
But I think distro's tools for cgroup is not as old as...
Hmm, backport to 2.6.25 is enough ?
Balbir, how do you think ? I think you are familiar with libcgroup.

Thanks,
-Kame

--
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/