linux-kernel - Re: patch] cpusets, cgroups: disallow attaching kthreadd

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:	Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:53:03 -0700
From:	Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: patch] cpusets, cgroups: disallow attaching kthreadd

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
>
> Oh my, I can't win.
>
> Either of the two patchlets will do the trick, so maintainer's choice.
>

I agree with your original idea - if it's just some cgroup subsystems
that are unsafe to have kthreadd in, then they can make that choice.

Otherwise you restrict things unnecessarily. E.g. a systemd-alike
might have a tracking hierarchy (without any subsystems attached,
potentially) and want to keep the top-level empty and have all kernel
threads their own cgroup. There's absolutely no problem with that.

I can see the argument that the number of use-cases for this is fairly
small, but in line with the principle of keeping the ABI as stable as
possible in the absence of bugs that force a change, having the
restriction in the necessary subsystems seems cleaner.

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/