Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 Sep 2006 13:51:13 -0700 | From | Paul Jackson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] security: introduce fs caps |
| |
Serge wrote: > One remaining question is the note under task_setscheduler: are we > ok with CAP_SYS_NICE being sufficient to confine a process to a > cpuset?
So far as I know (which isn't very far ;), that's ok.
Can you explain to me how this will visibly affect users?
Under what conditions, with what kernel configurations or options selected or not, and with what permissions settings, would they notice any difference, before and after this patch, in the behaviour of cpusets, such as when they do the operation of writing a pid to tasks file that invokes kernel/cpuset.c:attach_task()?
-- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401 - 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/
| |