On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 08:08:16AM -0800, John Stultz wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) >> <mtk.manpa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 13 December 2016 at 02:39, John Stultz <john.stu...@linaro.org> wrote: >> > So, back to the discussion of silos. I understand the argument for >> > wanting a new silo. But, in that case can we at least try not to make >> > it a single-use silo? >> > >> > How about CAP_CGROUP_CONTROL or some such, with the idea that this >> > might be a capability that allows the holder to step outside usual >> > cgroup rules? At the moment, that capability would allow only one such >> > step, but maybe there would be others in the future. >> >> This sounds reasonable to me. Tejun/Andy: Objections? > > Control group control? The word control has a specific meaning for > cgroups and that second control doesn't make much sense to me.
But this would go against the long tradition of RAS syndrome and things like "struct task_struct". :) > Given > how this is mostly to patch up a hole in v1's delegation model and how > migration operations are different from others, I doubt that we will > end up overloading it. Maybe just CAP_CGROUP? Sounds ok to me. thanks -john
