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: <YTr0n+lRtgwXXOD/@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Sep 2021 08:01:03 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     "taoyi.ty" <escape@...ux.alibaba.com>
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 Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:15:02AM +0800, taoyi.ty wrote:
> 
> 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.

That does not mean we have to add additional kernel complexity for an
obsolete feature that we are not adding support for anymore.  If
anything, this would be a good reason to move those userspace services
to the new api to solve this issue, right?

thanks,

greg k-h