On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:46:22PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:10:17PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > > [..] > >> At this point I think journald people need to give a little bit more > >> details on how they plan to use SO_PASSCGROUP. > >> > >> For my use cases I care only about streams and SO_PEERCGROUP that does > >> not have any of the (perceived) issues of SO_PASSCGROUP. > > > > Ok, so we agree that SO_PEERCGROUP is not a problem. And it solves the > > problem for some of the use cases. > > > > And there is lot of contention on the SO_PASSCGROUP option. > > > > So how about taking one step at a time. Get SO_PEERCGROUP in first and > > then get into more details on how SO_PASSCGROUP will exactly be used and > > then decide what to do. > > My only objection to SO_PEERCGROUP is that I don't believe that a > legitimate use case exists. I think the feature itself is safe to > add. So what happened to logger use case where logger accepts stream connections and logs the cgroup of client too. W.r.t systemd, looks like journald is accepting connections at /run/systemd/journal/stdout. (stdout_stream_new() and server_open_stdout_socket()). Thanks Vivek -- 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
