On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 09:54:37AM -0700, John Stultz wrote: >> > Also, CAP_SYS_RESOURCE deserves consideration (34 uses in capable() >> > checks). I'd say, since cgroups are about resources, so there's >> > something of a match there., so it's also worth considering. >> >> I'll try to look into CAP_SYS_RESOURCE. >> >> Colin/Todd: Any objection from the Android side on CAP_SYS_RESOURCE? >> >> (Or we could just create a new 512bit CAP2_ capabilities interface! :P) > > FWIW, if CAP_SYS_RESOURCE works, I'd be happy with that. CAP_SYS_RESOURCE would work for Android right now (system_server already has CAP_SYS_RESOURCE), so I'm optimistic this will be the best approach (I've got a newer, much simpler patch queued for sending out here). But I'm waiting to hear back from folks on the Android side to make sure they aren't planning on removing that CAP from system_server any time soon. thanks -john -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
