[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100624110836.B5B2.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:41:38 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Mike McCormack <mikem@...g3k.org>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, oleg@...hat.com,
serue@...ibm.com, jmorris@...ei.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: Add complete process group list
> * modify kernel to list all groups in /proc/<pid>/status
> - very long lines become possible in status file
> - no way to know whether you're using an old kernel with 32 group limit
> or new kernel and pid only has 32 groups
Is this necessary? Why?
Who need 32 groups limitation?
> * modify kernel to add /proc/<pid>/groups
> - more kernel-userland interface
My personal opinion (aka my personal prefer) is,
- If fixing /proc/<pid>/status is zero downside, it should do.
- If fixing /proc/</pid>status is some downside (e.g. performance down),
/proc/<pid>groups is better
because, 99% user don't use >32groups.
And, personally I dislike following three ;)
> * implement LOCAL_CREDS for unix domain sockets in Linux
> - work
>
> * limit number of groups to 32
> - limit is imposed by /proc code
>
> * create multiple unix domian sockets per privilege with group r/w only
> - seems like trouble
--
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