linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] cgroups: add a pids subsystem

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: <20150312034720.GE25944@htj.duckdns.org>
Date:	Wed, 11 Mar 2015 23:47:20 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>
Cc:	Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>, lizefan@...wei.com,
	mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, richard@....at,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] cgroups: add a pids subsystem

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:13:48AM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> I did not necessarily word this very clearly.  What I meant is that
> /proc/sys/kernel/pid_max is essentially an external limiting factor that
> caps the total number of pids that can be under the root cgroup and it's
> children, not that the cgroup in any way payed attention to it.  It might be
> useful to be able to just disable the sysctl option and set the value
> through the root cgroup, solely or consistency, although such usage isn't
> something I would consider essential in any way.

Unless there's a compelling reason to implement it, I don't think it's
a good idea to add it.  The reasons against it have been mentioned a
couple times in the thread and AFAICS none is being refuted.

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/