Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753392AbZCVICJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Mar 2009 04:02:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752362AbZCVIBw (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Mar 2009 04:01:52 -0400 Received: from e23smtp02.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.144]:44800 "EHLO e23smtp02.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752142AbZCVIBv (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Mar 2009 04:01:51 -0400 Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:30:55 +0530 From: Dhaval Giani To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Linux Containers , mingo@elte.hu, Bharata B Rao , lkml Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] introduce user_ns inheritance in user-sched Message-ID: <20090322080055.GA4274@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Dhaval Giani References: <20090319211615.GA18383@us.ibm.com> <1237537460.24626.32.camel@twins> <20090321024639.GB21064@hallyn.com> <1237635409.4667.186.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1237635409.4667.186.camel@laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2366 Lines: 60 On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:36:49PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 21:46 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting Peter Zijlstra (peterz@infradead.org): > > > On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 16:16 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > > In a kernel compiled with CONFIG_USER_SCHED=y, cpu shares are > > > > allocated according to uid. Shares are specifiable under > > > > /sys/kernel/uids// > > > > > > > > In a kernel compiled with CONFIG_USER_NS=y, clone(2) with the > > > > CLONE_NEWUSER flag creates a new user namespace, and the newly > > > > cloned task will belong to uid 0 in the new user namespace. > > > > > > We seem to be adding more and more stuff for USER_SCHED, is anybody > > > actually using that cruft? > > > > > > How far along with cgroups are we to fully simulate that behaviour? > > > > > > I think if we have a capable cgroup based replacement for USER_SCHED we > > > should axe it from the kernel, would save lots of code... > > > > I didn't realize that was the plan. Using PAM to move users > > around cgroups? > > Right, thing is, distro's will all want cgroup enabled, since that's the > latest fad :-), so this user sched thing will only be for people who > build their own kernels -- but I suspect most of those simply disable > all this group scheduling. > But if they do not, then the behavior is wrong now, and I would prefer it to be fixed, which is why this patch. > > If so, then yeah that would simplify quite a bit > > of code. Won't catch all setuid()s of course > > Right, so if we could somehow get a setuid notification hooked into > cgroups,.. not sure that would be worth the trouble though. > Does anyone really care about uid based grouping? (I do realize the userspace daemon classifies on the basis of uids as of now, but still, how many use cases really want uid based grouping as opposed to process type (as in browser, compiler..) type of grouping) > > - I don't know who uses USER_SCHED and if that would matter. > > Right, me neither... I would just love to be able to cut all that code > out :-) > me too :) -- regards, Dhaval -- 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/