linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH cgroup/for-3.19-fixes] cgroup: implement cgroup

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]

Message-ID: <20150112112845.GS25319@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2015 06:28:45 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
Cc:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	"Suzuki K. Poulose" <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH cgroup/for-3.19-fixes] cgroup: implement
 cgroup_subsys->unbind() callback

Hello, Vladimir.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:01:14AM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> Come to think of it, I wonder how many users actually want to mount
> different controllers subset after unmount. Because we could allow

It wouldn't be a common use case but, on the face of it, we still
support it.  If we collecctively decide that once a sub cgroup is
created for any controller no further hierarchy configuration for that
controller is allowed, that'd work too, but one way or the other, the
behavior, I believe, should be well-defined.  As it currently stands,
the conditions and failure mode are opaque to userland, which is never
a good thing.

> mounting the same subset perfectly well, even if it includes memcg. BTW,
> AFAIU in the unified hierarchy we won't have this problem at all,
> because by definition it mounts all controllers IIRC, so do we need to
> bother fixing this in such a complicated manner at all for the setup
> that's going to be deprecated anyway?

There will likely be a quite long transition period and if and when
the old things can be removed, this added cleanup logic can go away
with it.  It depends on how complex the implementation would get but
as long as it isn't too much and stays mostly isolated from the saner
paths, I think it's probably the right thing to do.

Thanks.

-- 
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/