linux-kernel - Re: [patch-final] 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]

Message-ID: <CALdu-PCJnBajrBp04R1_y1qze8awiYEhj-Bjnaci3G+vRFtMYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:00:22 -0700
From:	Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch-final] Re: patch] cpusets, cgroups: disallow attaching kthreadd

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> I really think that if we want to restrain userspace from doing
> something stupid we might as well do something that makes sense,

Totally agreed. There are two solutions proposed, both of which make
sense as a method of solving the problem, and which have different
levels of effect on the existing user-visible API. So which do we
prefer?

If you just want to make sure people think about it before there's a
problem rather than after, then an alternative would be to have a flag
in cgroup_subsys such as allow_kthreadd, which defaults to false and
can be explicitly set to true for subsystems that are kthreadd-safe.

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/