On Sat, 21 Jan 2012, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 18.01.12 18:40, Tejun Heo (tj@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 06:20:05PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > Also note that tmpfs also implies size limit. We definitely need some > > form of control over the amount of memory xattr may consume. > > Good point. But then again we don't even have anything resembling for > tmpfs either, where it would be much more important... :-( But although the tmpfs framework for xattrs is general, the validation function only permits XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX and XATTR_TRUSTED_PREFIX. Yes, it would be very necessary to impose size limits if tmpfs went beyond those to permit XATTR_USER_PREFIX - which the cgroupfs patch under discussion does permit. > > Given that cgroupfs is probably mostly read-only for normal users, the > requirement for quotas on it is probably much less important than for tmpfs > though. Hugh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
