lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 08 Jun 2006 14:36:40 -0400
FromShailabh Nagar <>
SubjectRe: Merge of per task delay accounting (was Re: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
Andrew Morton wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 10:27:46 -0400
>Shailabh Nagar <nagar@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
>>Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>>On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:28:15 -0400
>>>Shailabh Nagar <nagar@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>>So, we have a good consensus from existing/potential users of taskstats and would
>>>>very much appreciate it being included in 2.6.18.
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>Yes, for 2.6.18 I'm inclined to send taskstats and to continue to play
>>>wait-and-see on the statistics infrastructure.  Greg is taking a look at
>>>the stats code, which is good.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>Thanks !
>>
>>The suggestion from  Jay Lan to extend the interface by making sending 
>>of tgid stats configurable
>>is quite reasonable and can be done relatively simply:
>>set some parameter, either by sending a separate command (verify sender 
>>is privileged) or by
>>some sysfs parameter and use that to control sending of tgid stats on 
>>task exit (as well as allocation of
>>any tgid stat related structures).
>> 
>>
>
>hm.  Is it possible to check the privileges of a netlink message sender?
> 
>
Not entirely sure. But there's a check in net/netlink/genetlink.c: 
genl_rcv_msg()
for
if ((ops->flags & GENL_ADMIN_PERM) && security_netlink_recv(skb))
{    err = -EPERM;
    goto errout;
}
and security_netlink_recv(skb), normally set to cap_netlink_recv, checks 
on the skb's effective capability
being CAP_NET_ADMIN which I thought would be sufficient.
Need to look further.

If it doesn't turn out to fit properly, sysfs config variable can be used.

>>Would you recommend we submit a patch for it now or wait till after 
>>delay accounting has gone into
>>2.6.18 ?
>> 
>>
>
>Earlier, please.
> 
>
Ok. will submit asap.

> 
>
>>Such requests for extending the interface are likely to happen as more 
>>users start using the interface.
>>But since any patch will need some testing etc. and we are very close to 
>>the 2.6.18 merge window, I
>>wanted your advice on whether this should wait until later.
>> 
>>
>
>If it's merged, we'll have a couple more months to test it, and to fix any
>little problems.
> 
>
Sounds good.


Thanks,
Shailabh

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-06-08 20:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2008