linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/7] cgroup: make sure parent won't be destroyed before its children

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: <515E86DA.1090907@parallels.com>
Date:	Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:10:02 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/7] cgroup: make sure parent won't be destroyed
 before its children

On 04/04/2013 07:22 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 05:20:28PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> But what harm does an additional reference do?
>>
>> No harm at all. I just wanted to be sure that this is not yet another
>> "for memcg" hack. So if this is useful for other controllers then I have
>> no objections of course.
> 
> I think it makes sense in general, so let's do it in cgroup core.  I
> suppose it'd be easier for this to be routed together with other memcg
> changes?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
You guys seems already settled, but FWIW I agree with Tejun here. It
makes sense from a design point of view for a cgroup to pin its parent.
cgroup core it is.

--
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/