On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:13:53AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> > Delegation is an explicit operation and reflected in the ownership of >> > the subdirectories and cgroup interface files in them. The >> > subhierarchy containment is achieved by requiring the user who's >> > trying to migrate a process to have write perm on cgroup.procs on the >> > common ancestor of the source and target in addition to the target. >> >> OK, I see what you're doing. That's interesting. > > It's something born out of usages of cgroup v1. People used it that > way (chowning files and directories) and combined with the uid checksn > it yielded something which is useful sometimes, but it always had > issues with hierarchical behaviors, which files to chmod and the weird > combination of uid checks. cgroup v2 has a clear delegation model but > the uid checks are still left in as not changing was the default. > > It's not necessary and I'm thinking about queueing something like the > following in the next cycle. > > As for the android CAP discussion, I think it'd be nice to share an > existing CAP but if we can't find a good one to share, let's create a > new one. So just to clarify the discussion for my purposes and make sure I understood, per-cgroup CAP rules was not desired, and instead we should either utilize an existing cap (are there still objections to CAP_SYS_RESOURCE? - this isn't clear to me) or create a new one (ie, bring back the older CAP_CGROUP_MIGRATE patch). Tejun: Do you have a more finished version of your patch that I should add my changes on top of? 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
