Hello, On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 08:08:16AM -0800, John Stultz wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) > <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 13 December 2016 at 02:39, John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So, back to the discussion of silos. I understand the argument for > > wanting a new silo. But, in that case can we at least try not to make > > it a single-use silo? > > > > How about CAP_CGROUP_CONTROL or some such, with the idea that this > > might be a capability that allows the holder to step outside usual > > cgroup rules? At the moment, that capability would allow only one such > > step, but maybe there would be others in the future. > > This sounds reasonable to me. Tejun/Andy: Objections? Control group control? The word control has a specific meaning for cgroups and that second control doesn't make much sense to me. Given how this is mostly to patch up a hole in v1's delegation model and how migration operations are different from others, I doubt that we will end up overloading it. Maybe just CAP_CGROUP? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
