agreed on all points. <drew>
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Justin M Kuntz wrote: > > I personally am already making use of security contexts starting at 2, and > so I'd hate to see us forced to use > 1000, whether we want quota support > or not. Ultimately I'd like a way to be found whereby the security context > range is not directly tied to the quotas, but I realize there are only so > many tradeoffs which can be made to keep the code clean. > > Thank you for all of your work on this! > > Justin > > > > > > Jacques > Gelinas To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <jack@solucorp cc: > .qc.ca> Fax to: > Subject: Re: [vserver] Quotas > 10/29/2002 > 04:52 PM > Please respond > to vserver > > > > > > > On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:41:20 -0500, Dave wrote > > > For example I don't mind if the context has to be fixed for each > > vserver, if this was the price for not having to patch userland tools. > > If we combine the 16bit uid + 16bit context, there're still 64K servers > > to be created before we run out of "virtuals" on the same machine. > > Right? > > Btw, for those who want to play with special context (assigned by hand), I > can > change the kernel so on-the-fly security context are allocated from 1000 > and up > making sure the one you have select by hand will only be used by this > vserver. > > My idea about vserver quota was a little like that. Some uid remapping. > > I was adding another tricks. The quota of all users in a vserver was summed > and > enter as a special user. Each vserver would be associated with a special > users. For > example, if vserver foo is created, then user quota_foo would be created > and > it would be possible to limit globally a vserver just by limiting user > quota_foo. > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Jacques Gelinas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > vserver: run general purpose virtual servers on one box, full speed! > http://www.solucorp.qc.ca/miscprj/s_context.hc > > > > >
