On Wed, 2014-04-16 at 12:21 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:13:57PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > The only one that *may* be reasonable is the "secret" cgroup name one, > > however nobody seem to come up with a reason why it is legitimate to > > allow to keep cgroup names secret. > > Ugh, please don't play security games with cgroup names. It is one of > the identifying properties of a task, like a pid, and will be used in > other parts of the kernel to match groups of tasks. If we play > security peekaboo with cgroup names, it has to be transitive and puts > burdens on all its future uses. Unless there are *REALLY* strong > rationales, which can also justify hiding pids, this isn't happening. FWIW, I totally agree with you, it's Andy Lutomirski that is coming up with this "secret" cgropus name idea, nobody else (so far) seem to agree it makes sense. Simo. -- 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
