Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 13:51:13 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] security: introduce fs caps
Message-Id: <20060906135113.00051e89.pj@sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060906182719.GB24670@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>
References: <20060906182719.GB24670@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>
Organization: SGI
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1007
Lines: 24

Serge wrote:
> 	One remaining question is the note under task_setscheduler: are we
> 	ok with CAP_SYS_NICE being sufficient to confine a process to a
> 	cpuset?

So far as I know (which isn't very far ;), that's ok.

Can you explain to me how this will visibly affect users?

Under what conditions, with what kernel configurations or options
selected or not, and with what permissions settings, would they notice
any difference, before and after this patch, in the behaviour of
cpusets, such as when they do the operation of writing a pid to tasks
file that invokes kernel/cpuset.c:attach_task()?

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/