On 06/24/16 17:24, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Serge. > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:59:10AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >>> Just monitoring is less jarring than implementing security enforcement >>> via cgroup, but it is still jarring. What's wrong with recursive >>> process hierarchy monitoring which is in line with the whole facility >>> is implemented anyway? >> >> As I think Topi pointed out, one shortcoming is that if there is a short-lived >> child task, using its /proc/self/status is racy. You might just miss that it >> ever even existed, let alone that the "application" needed it. > > But the parent can collect whatever its children used. We already do > that with other stats. The parent might be able do it if proc/pid/xyz files are still accessible after child exit but before its exit status is collected. But if the parent doesn't do it (and you are not able to change it to do it) and it collects the exit status without collecting other info, can you suggest a different way how another process could collect it 100% reliably? -Topi > > Thanks. > -- 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
