linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 12/12] cgroup: implement dynamic subtree controller enable/disable on the default hierarchy

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: <20140418204108.GL23576@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:41:08 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Raghavendra KT <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	lizefan@...wei.com, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12] cgroup: implement dynamic subtree controller
 enable/disable on the default hierarchy

Hello,

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:33:50PM +0530, Raghavendra KT wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> I undertsand that with the above parsing we could do
> echo "-blkio +blkio" > cgroup.subtree_control and honor last enable/disable.

Yeah, and the behavior is described in the following document.

 http://lkml.kernel.org/g/20140416145248.GD1257@htj.dyndns.org

> It confused me while testing. do you think we should return -EINVAL in
> such case?

Hmmm... I think whatever comes later wins is a pretty clear and easy
rule, no?

-- 
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/