-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/27/2010 05:22 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 02:44:15PM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 08/26/2010 01:18 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 02:44:15PM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 08/26/2010 01:18 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't know. My goal with sandbox was to allow use
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:30:59PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > Would it be possible to have systemd either use libcgroup to mount these
> > directories, or to parse the libcgroup config file to determine where to put
> > the mounts?
> libcgroup doesn't really have an API for mounting thing
On Thu, 26.08.10 23:30, Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26.08.10 17:03, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:19:44PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > 2) systemd mounts all hierarchies exposed by the kernel by default. The
>
On Thu, 26.08.10 17:03, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:19:44PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > 2) systemd mounts all hierarchies exposed by the kernel by default. The
> >scheme how it does that follows the default configuration libcgroup
> >inst
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:19:44PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> 2) systemd mounts all hierarchies exposed by the kernel by default. The
>scheme how it does that follows the default configuration libcgroup
>installs (modulo the recent /sys/fs/cgroup root dir change). We mount
Would it
On Thu, 26.08.10 13:04, Daniel J Walsh (dwa...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > Dan, *could* systemd as it stands provide what you need for sandboxes?
> >
> >
> I don't know. My goal with sandbox was to allow users to startup
> sandboxes in such a way that they could be still killed.
>
> Is there a way
On Thu, 26.08.10 09:59, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:13:05PM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> > > Hmm, why is libcgroup pulled in by policycoreutils? What's the
> > > rationale?
> > It is used for confining sandboxes.
>
> Having now looked at both projec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/26/2010 02:49 PM, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 08/26/2010 01:18 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 01:04:33PM -04
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 08/26/2010 01:18 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know. My goal with sandbox was to allow users to startu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/26/2010 01:18 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>>
>> I don't know. My goal with sandbox was to allow users to startup
>> sandboxes in such a way that they could be still killed.
>>
>
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>
> I don't know. My goal with sandbox was to allow users to startup
> sandboxes in such a way that they could be still killed.
>
> Is there a way in cgroups to say
>
> dwalsh gets 80% CPU
> Then allow dwalsh to specify sandboxes c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/26/2010 12:18 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 09:59:59AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> Dan, *could* systemd as it stands provide what you need for sandboxes?
>
> Having looked a bit more at libcgroup, let me put this questi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/26/2010 09:59 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:13:05PM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>>> Hmm, why is libcgroup pulled in by policycoreutils? What's the
>>> rationale?
>> It is used for confining sandboxes.
>
> Having now loo
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 09:59:59AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Dan, *could* systemd as it stands provide what you need for sandboxes?
Having looked a bit more at libcgroup, let me put this question in an
entirely different way, because I understand better what's going on. So:
Dan, do you use t
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:13:05PM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> > Hmm, why is libcgroup pulled in by policycoreutils? What's the
> > rationale?
> It is used for confining sandboxes.
Having now looked at both projects, it appears to me that they are in
conflict. They could be made to work side by
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/25/2010 05:46 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 25.08.10 17:04, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
>
>> If you are using the libcgroup package, and in particular the cgconfig
>> serivice, be aware that this will break systemd. This
On Wed, 25.08.10 17:04, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
> If you are using the libcgroup package, and in particular the cgconfig
> serivice, be aware that this will break systemd. This package is pulled into
> Fedora by policycoreutils, so you likely have it on your system. However,
> cg
If you are using the libcgroup package, and in particular the cgconfig
serivice, be aware that this will break systemd. This package is pulled into
Fedora by policycoreutils, so you likely have it on your system. However,
cgconfig is not enabled by default.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi
19 matches
Mail list logo
