On 03/15/2013 06:07 PM, Serge Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Glauber Costa (glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx): >> Most of the other subsystems already keep track of that in some way. We >> will do that internally and provide a test to determine whether or not >> our task is in a device cgroup that is not the root one. We can relax >> some of our checks in that case, trusting that whoever set device cgroup >> rules will be responsible to control access to their devices. >> >> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Aristeu Rozanski <aris@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Patch looks fine. AFAIK we're still waiting on Aristeu's patchset to > hit upstream. As your patches are simpler I'd prefer, if there is > churn, for yours to be refactored than his. > I have no problem with that. There is also a small build issue here that needs to be fixed. If you allow me, with my guarantees that the patch will be preserved in spirit I will keep your ack after any refactoring =) _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
