linux-kernel - Re: + cgroups-fix-ordering-of-calls-in-cgroup_attach

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, 26 Aug 2011 08:18:26 -0700
From:	Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	bblum@...rew.cmu.edu, fweisbec@...il.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	tj@...nel.org
Subject: Re: + cgroups-fix-ordering-of-calls-in-cgroup_attach_proc.patch added
 to -mm tree

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> But this doesn't answer my another question. After that the code does
>
>         * step 4: do expensive, non-thread-specific subsystem callbacks.
>
>                ss->attach(ss, cgrp, oldcgrp, leader);
>
> OK, non-thread-specific is nice, but how can this "leader" represent
> the process?

There's a set of patches from Tejun Heo that address some of these
inconsistencies and lack of information - search the list for
cgroup_taskset.

Paul
--
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/