Hello, On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 11:31:04AM -0600, Serge Hallyn wrote: > We can't generally require a capability to move tasks between cgroups, > as that will break currently intended uses. I can create two cgroups, > chown them to serge, and let serge move between them. Sure, then just live with the cgroupfs based permission check. What next? Should we add CAP_SYS_RESOURCE check to all resource related controllers? Moreover, We're headed to unified hierarchy, so in the end that means only the user with almost all CAP_* can manipulate cgroups at all making the whole thing meaningless. I don't think applying fine-grained CAP_* to cgroup controllers makes sense or would be useful in any real sense. We can introduce, say, CAP_CGROUP to control access cgroupfs but I think we already have enough access control to cgroupfs, don't we? Thanks. -- tejun _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
