linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 27/33] x86/intel_rdt_rdtgroup.c: Implement resctrl file system commands

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:   Thu, 8 Sep 2016 15:04:12 -0700
From:   Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
To:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
CC:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
        "David Carrillo-Cisneros" <davidcc@...gle.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sai Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 27/33] x86/intel_rdt_rdtgroup.c: Implement resctrl
 file system commands

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 02:57:21AM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
>  /*
>   * kernfs_root - find out the kernfs_root a kernfs_node belongs to
> @@ -730,6 +749,110 @@ static void rdtgroup_destroy_locked(struct rdtgroup *rdtgrp)
>  	kernfs_remove(rdtgrp->kn);
>  }
>  
> +static int rdtgroup_mkdir(struct kernfs_node *parent_kn, const char *name,
> +			umode_t mode)
> +{
> +	struct rdtgroup *parent, *rdtgrp;
> +	struct rdtgroup_root *root;
> +	struct kernfs_node *kn;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	if (parent_kn != root_rdtgrp->kn)
> +		return -EPERM;
> +

So we can't create nested groups. Is this limitation temporary? I don't see
this is mentioned in the interface document.

Thanks,
Shaohua