linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] cgroup: limit cgroup psi file writes to processes with CAP_SYS

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]

Message-ID: <CAJuCfpH1OsRH15p9PBxuCXrp8RrSiP5u4XQouuO-zOUxCB-zbw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Mar 2023 10:40:05 -0800
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     tj@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, lizefan.x@...edance.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, johunt@...mai.com, quic_sudaraja@...cinc.com,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] cgroup: limit cgroup psi file writes to processes
 with CAP_SYS_RESOURCE

On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 10:35 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed 01-03-23 10:05:36, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> [...]
> > Yes but hopefully my argument about keeping this and min period
> > patches separate is reasonable?
>
> I am not questioning that. The practical advantage to squash the two
> changes is that in case of the CAP_SYS_RESOURCE you do not have to
> explicitly think about reverting the min constrain as well. I do not
> think reverting one without the other is good.

Ok, I'm fine with having both changes in the same patch. Will post v2
later today. Thanks!

>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs