Hello, Michal. On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 07:30:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 07-08-13 16:47:30, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 07-08-13 15:57:34, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > Hmm, OK so you think that the fd limit is sufficient already? > > > > Hmm, that would need to touch the code as well (the register callback > > would need to make sure only one event is registered per cfile). But yes > > this way would be better. I will send a new patch once I have an idle > > moment. > > What do you think about the following? I am not sure about EINVAL maybe > there is a better way to tell userspace it is doing something wrong. I > would appreciate any suggestions. If this looks good I will post a > similar patch for vmpressure. I don't think it's a good idea. Not sure it matters given that this isn't a very popular interface but adding this sort of rather arbitrary restrictions can be confusing and lead to issues in userland which are extremely annoying to track down. Also, in terms of layering, this is horribly misplaced. This is low level event source implementation, which is not the right place to implement logic to protect from userland abuses / mistakes. That's the whole thing with this interface. It's essentially implementing a new userland-visible notification framework. It is a complex userland visible interface which takes a lot of design and effort to get right and cgroup core or memcg definitely is not the place to do anything like this. Collectively, we are not capable enough to do pull things like this properly by ourselves and even if we were it is not the right place to do it. Given how generally broken delegating to !priv users is, I don't think there's anything we can or should do at this point rather than noting that it is broken and was a mistake. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>