| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4BEAB6FC.8090105@intcomgrp.com> Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 10:11:08 -0400 From: James Kosin <jkosin@...comgrp.com> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dhaval.giani@...il.com, peterz@...radead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Have sane default values for cpusets On 5/12/2010 9:50 AM, Dhaval Giani wrote: > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote: >> On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 15:05 +0200, Dhaval Giani wrote: >>> Where cpusets goes wrong is to have a *no* default values. >> >> It has a default, empty is still a valid value. >> > > Well, it is still not sane. And in the part you snipped, I did mention, > >>> do we enforce a policy to have sane defaults >>> for subsystems if they prevent attaching "regular" tasks by default. > > And to add to it, a sane default can be defined as one, where a task > can be attached to a cgroup on creation without changing any other > parameter. > > Dhaval By keeping the insane policy, we force everyone to properly setup to sane defaults. By automatically inheriting the defaults, we would be introducing the possibility of a lazy programmer forgetting to setup the proper defaults for their application which may need different values than the inherited settings. This would lead to ensuing chaos eventually. James -- 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