lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] introduce user_ns inheritance in user-sched
From
Date
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 21:46 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Peter Zijlstra (peterz@infradead.org):
> > On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 16:16 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > In a kernel compiled with CONFIG_USER_SCHED=y, cpu shares are
> > > allocated according to uid. Shares are specifiable under
> > > /sys/kernel/uids/<uid>/
> > >
> > > In a kernel compiled with CONFIG_USER_NS=y, clone(2) with the
> > > CLONE_NEWUSER flag creates a new user namespace, and the newly
> > > cloned task will belong to uid 0 in the new user namespace.
> >
> > We seem to be adding more and more stuff for USER_SCHED, is anybody
> > actually using that cruft?
> >
> > How far along with cgroups are we to fully simulate that behaviour?
> >
> > I think if we have a capable cgroup based replacement for USER_SCHED we
> > should axe it from the kernel, would save lots of code...
>
> I didn't realize that was the plan. Using PAM to move users
> around cgroups?

Right, thing is, distro's will all want cgroup enabled, since that's the
latest fad :-), so this user sched thing will only be for people who
build their own kernels -- but I suspect most of those simply disable
all this group scheduling.

> If so, then yeah that would simplify quite a bit
> of code. Won't catch all setuid()s of course

Right, so if we could somehow get a setuid notification hooked into
cgroups,.. not sure that would be worth the trouble though.

> - I don't know who uses USER_SCHED and if that would matter.

Right, me neither... I would just love to be able to cut all that code
out :-)




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-21 12:39    [W:0.576 / U:0.404 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site