linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 8/8] cgroup: Add documentation for cgroup namespaces

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 7 Jan 2015 18:35:53 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	cgroups mailinglist <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 8/8] cgroup: Add documentation for cgroup namespaces

On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 05:27:38PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> The -o SUBSYS option doesn't exist.  Jesus, at least get yourself
> >> familiar with the basics before claiming random stuff.
> 
> Oh let's see I got that command line option out of /proc/mounts and yes
> it works.  Perhaps it doesn't if I invoke unified hiearchies but the
> option does in fact exist and work.

I meant the -o SUBSYS doesn't exist for unified hierarchy.

> Now I really do need to test report regressions, and send probably send
> regression fixes.  If I understand your strange ranting I think you just
> told me that option that -o SUBSYS does work with unified hierarchies.

What?  Why would -O SUBSYS exist for unified hierarchy?  It's unified
for all controllers.

> Tejun.  I asked you specifically about this case 2 years ago at plumbers
> and you personally told me this would continue to work.  I am going to
> hold you to that.

I have no idea what you're talking about in *THIS* thread.  I'm fully
aware of what was discussed *THEN*.

> Fixing bugs is one thing.  Gratuitious regressions that make supporting
> existing user space applications insane is another.

Can you explain what problem you're actually trying to talk about
without spouting random claims about regressions?

-- 
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/