[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5358284B.7020706@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:53:31 -0400
From: Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@...hat.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Simo Sorce <ssorce@...hat.com>,
lpoetter@...hat.com, kay@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: Implement SO_PEERCGROUP and SO_PASSCGROUP socket
options
On 04/23/2014 03:05 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 01:31:13PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> [..]
>>> Otherwise, without SO_PASSCGROUP, there is no way for datagram sockets
>>> to find out the peer's open() time cgroup.
>> Right.
>>
>> I'd still like to know what userspace applications want this feature.
>> The canonical example seems to be journald, but journald doesn't use
>> unix datagram sockets AFAICS,
> Dan Walsh mentiond that systemd also monitors /dev/log (datagram socket) and
> logs everything in journal. There this information should be useful.
>
> Thanks
> Vivek
I am fine with collecting only the information available at "open". I
can potentially see other Userspace Resource Constraints being built
based on the Cgroup the process is in. For example openshift wants to
limit the amount of email a process can send to only a few per second,
which might be able to be controlled by a relay listening on a
particular socket. Then it could change the rules based on the
Cgroup/Unit file the calling process was in.
--
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