linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] make clone

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4EE99BCA.1010505@parallels.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:03:38 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<jbottomley@...allels.com>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	<bsingharora@...il.com>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
	<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] make clone_children a flag

On 12/14/2011 10:18 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:09:14AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> That's indeed confusing, and it comes from the fact that we always
>> inherit clone_children from the parent - which is sane, IMHO. So
>> this flag only has any value in establishing the initial behaviour
>> of the top root cgroup. I wonder then if it wouldn't better to just
>> be explicit and fail in this case ?
>
> I don't think all current behaviors are sane and if not let's change
> them, but those things have to be explicit with proper description and
> rationale.
>

140 % agree to that. As I said, I wrongly believed it to be functionally 
equivalent when I sent it, but missed the flags remount check.

If you believe the behavior we now get is saner, I can rewrite the 
Changelog and resend it.

--
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/