linux-kernel - Re: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/9] cgroup/pids: Separate semantics of pids.events related to pids.max

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 07:04:51 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/9] cgroup/pids: Separate semantics of
 pids.events related to pids.max

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 04:23:24PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 07:55:38AM -1000, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> > The whole series make sense to me.
> 
> Including the migration charging?
> (Asking whether I should keep it stacked in v4 posting.)

Oh, let's separate that part out. I'm not sure about that. The problem with
can_attach failures is that they're really opaque and the more we do it the
less we'll be able to tell where the failures are coming from, so I'm not
very enthusiastic about them.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun