linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] misc_cgroup: introduce misc.events and misc

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: <YTuIqecqjPKEZcrn@slm.duckdns.org>
Date:   Fri, 10 Sep 2021 06:32:41 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Cc:     brookxu <brookxu.cn@...il.com>, Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>,
        lizefan.x@...edance.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] misc_cgroup: introduce misc.events and
 misc_events.local

Hello,

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 12:33:06PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 01:20:37PM +0800, brookxu <brookxu.cn@...il.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, this is more reasonable. But there is still one question, whether we
> > need to be consistent with other cgroup subsystems, events and events.local
> > under v1 should not support hierarchy？
> 
> My take is that it's acceptable to present the v2-like files in v1 too
> for the sake of simplicity since:
> - this is not used yet,
> - the v1 is less conventional and
> - the presence of events.local would cater even to cases with tasks in
>   inner nodes.
> 
> It'd be good to have Tejun's insight on this too.

My general appraoch is

* If it's trivial both in terms of complexity and effort to add support for
  cgroup1, oh well, why not?

* Otherwise, don't bother.

* cgroup1 interface is wildly inconsistent anyway, so I wouldn't worry much
  about that.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun