linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/5] forced comounts for cgroups.

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: <20120905091925.GJ3195@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:	Wed, 5 Sep 2012 02:19:25 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, davej@...hat.com, ben@...adent.org.uk,
	pjt@...gle.com, lennart@...ttering.net, kay.sievers@...y.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] forced comounts for cgroups.

On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 01:12:34PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > No, I never counted out differing granularity.
> 
> Can you elaborate on which interface do you envision to make it work?
> They will clearly be mounted in the same hierarchy, or as said
> alternatively, comounted.

I'm not sure yet.  At the simplest, mask of controllers which should
honor (or ignore) nesting beyond the node.  That should be
understandable enough.  Not sure whether that would be flexible enough
yet tho.  In the end, they should be comounted but again I don't think
enforcing comounting at the moment is a step towards that.  It's more
like a step sideways.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/