[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAO_RewYiZVpbu8axKY+FtkaarjA_DohD2e==jcvdWn68ubcR+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:05:15 -0700
From: Tim Hockin <thockin@...gle.com>
To: Simo Sorce <ssorce@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
jkaluza@...hat.com, lpoetter@...hat.com, kay@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: Implement SO_PEERCGROUP
I don't buy that it is not practical. Not convenient, maybe. Not
clean, sure. But it is practical - it uses mechanisms that exist on
all kernels today. That is a win, to me.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Simo Sorce <ssorce@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 10:55 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> So give each container its own unix socket. Problem solved, no?
>
> Not really practical if you have hundreds of containers.
>
> Simo.
>
> --
> 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/
--
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