linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] support cgroup pool in v1

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: <a91912e2-606a-0868-7a0c-38dec5012b02@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:15:02 +0800
From:   "taoyi.ty" <escape@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     tj@...nel.org, lizefan.x@...edance.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
        mcgrof@...nel.org, keescook@...omium.org, yzaikin@...gle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, shanpeic@...ux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] support cgroup pool in v1


On 2021/9/8 下午8:35, Greg KH wrote:
> I thought cgroup v1 was "obsolete" and not getting new features added to
> it.  What is wrong with just using cgroups 2 instead if you have a
> problem with the v1 interface?
>
>    

There are two reasons for developing based on cgroup v1:


1. In the Internet scenario, a large number of services

are still using cgroup v1, cgroup v2 has not yet been

popularized.


2. The mechanism of cgroup pool refers to cgroup1_rename,

but for some reasons, a similar rename mechanism is not

implemented on cgroup v2, and I don't know the thoughts

behind this.