[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52D7A68F.5030700@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:29:51 +0100
From: Jan Kaluža <jkaluza@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, rgb@...hat.com, lizefan@...wei.com,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Send audit/procinfo/cgroup data in socket-level
control message
On 01/16/2014 12:23 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 06:21:43PM -0500, Eric Paris wrote:
>> Reliably being able to audit what process requested an action is
>> extremely useful. And I like the audit patch, as it is a couple of ints
>> we are storing.
>>
>> procinfo and cgroup can both be up to 4k of data.
>>
>> Is there an alternative he should consider? Some way to grab a
>> reference on task_struct and just attach that to the message?
>
> Or maybe it can be made separately optional instead of tagging along
> on an existing option so that it doesn't tax use cases which don't
> care about the new stuff?
Right, I could add new option next to SOCK_PASSCRED which could be used
to send newly added stuff. Would this be acceptable?
I would still vote for SCM_AUDIT to be part of SOCK_PASSCRED and move
SCM_CGROUP and SCM_PROCINFO into new option.
> Thanks.
>
Regards,
Jan Kaluza
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists