Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:40:57 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Cc: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        "open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com>,
        Rom Lemarchand <romlem@android.com>, Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>,
        Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@google.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
        Christian Poetzsch <christian.potzsch@imgtec.com>,
        Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@linaro.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] cgroup: Add new capability to allow a process to
 migrate other tasks between cgroups
Message-ID: <20161213184057.GA17672@htj.duckdns.org>
References: <1481593143-18756-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org>
 <CAKgNAkhGSYmtqLnCyXH8-dbmBJreo9mbVGRMyd_9hZ5D1F7q4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAqxLVz4WH5T7mjD1U5XG1pWQCJqsO2LWYcpJ+xDPjRb9QMig@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALAqxLVz4WH5T7mjD1U5XG1pWQCJqsO2LWYcpJ+xDPjRb9QMig@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1098
Lines: 27

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.manpages@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 13 December 2016 at 02:39, John Stultz <john.stultz@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.  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?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun