linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup

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: <4AF1AB60.7040108@compro.net>
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:27:12 -0500
From:	Mark Hounschell <markh@...pro.net>
To:	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Jan Safranek <jsafrane@...hat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bharata B Rao <bharata.rao@...ibm.com>,
	libcg-devel <libcg-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	"menage@...gle.com" <menage@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup

Dhaval Giani wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 09:35:30PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> * Jan Safranek <jsafrane@...hat.com> [2009-11-04 17:02:22]:
>>
>>> On 11/04/2009 04:21 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 13:46 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>>>>> The reason I liked /dev/cgroup was because cpusets could be
>>>>> mounted at /dev/cpuset or /dev/cgroup/cpuset. My concern with /cgroup
>>>>> is that a ls "/" now becomes larger in size. But I'll take your vote
>>>>> for it as +1 for /cgroup.
>>>> /dev/pts is a decent precedent for doing it under /dev, although it does
>>>> deal with actual devices.  cgroups do not.
>>> There is also /dev/shm, but IMHO that's not reason to pollute /dev
>>> with filesystems that are not devices.
>>>
>> Yep, but hasn't the pollution already occured with /dev/cpuset today? 
>> sysfs would require work for changes to /sys, so do we go with Kame's
>> suggestion of /cgroup?
>>
> 
> I vote for /cgroup as well.
> 
> thanks,

If this is really a voting matter, I would vote for /sys even if it does require someone to do some work, and also
the /dev/cpuset stuff to also move to /sys.  IE /sys/cgroup/cpuset etc..  Leave /  and /dev alone. 

thanks
mark
--
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/