[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrW3F1+3qF3thrAmuoWVbRveBJ2=owpigh4mv6iAafoQCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:46:22 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Simo Sorce <ssorce@...hat.com>, Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@...hat.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
lpoetter@...hat.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, kay@...hat.com,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: Implement SO_PASSCGROUP to enable passing cgroup path
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:10:17PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> [..]
>> At this point I think journald people need to give a little bit more
>> details on how they plan to use SO_PASSCGROUP.
>>
>> For my use cases I care only about streams and SO_PEERCGROUP that does
>> not have any of the (perceived) issues of SO_PASSCGROUP.
>
> Ok, so we agree that SO_PEERCGROUP is not a problem. And it solves the
> problem for some of the use cases.
>
> And there is lot of contention on the SO_PASSCGROUP option.
>
> So how about taking one step at a time. Get SO_PEERCGROUP in first and
> then get into more details on how SO_PASSCGROUP will exactly be used and
> then decide what to do.
My only objection to SO_PEERCGROUP is that I don't believe that a
legitimate use case exists. I think the feature itself is safe to
add.
--Andy
--
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