linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] block, bfq: delete "bfq" prefix from cgroup filenames

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]

Date:   Mon, 8 Apr 2019 17:19:06 +0200
From:   Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        'Paolo Valente' via bfq-iosched 
        <bfq-iosched@...glegroups.com>,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
        Angelo Ruocco <angeloruocco90@...il.com>,
        lennart@...ttering.net, mkoutny@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] block, bfq: delete "bfq" prefix from cgroup filenames



> Il giorno 8 apr 2019, alle ore 17:13, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> ha scritto:
> 
> On 4/8/19 9:08 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 09:05:19AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> I did consider that, and that would be doable. But honestly, I'm having a
>>> hard time seeing what issue we are attempting to fix by doing this.
>> 
>> Yeah, I guess the real fix would be to update the documentation and the
>> expectations user-space has. Including eventual re-write of some udev rules or
>> whatever is facing these files. But to me that sounds more like a systemd or
>> even distro thing than a kernel thing.
> 
> I agree. Trying to force someones hand by renaming isn't going to fix
> anything, but it will potentially cause issues.
> 

Potential issues against concrete, big issues already with us.  The
proportional share interface doesn't match the idea people have of it.

I don't want to push for this solution, but we cannot pretend we don't
have a big problem already.  Any solution that could really work is ok
for me, including symlinks.

Thanks,
Paolo

> -- 
> Jens Axboe
>