From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grzegorz Nosek Subject: ns_can_attach (nsproxy cgroup) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:51:53 +0100 Message-ID: <20081212095153.GA20956@megiteam.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Hi all, Is there a good reason for ns_can_attach to restrict moving tasks only to direct descentants of the current cgroup? I.e. could the code: orig = task_cgroup(task, ns_subsys_id); if (orig && orig != new_cgroup->parent) return -EPERM; be replaced with: orig = task_cgroup(task, ns_subsys_id); if (orig && !cgroup_is_descendant_of(new_cgroup, orig)) return -EPERM; (for a suitable definition of cgroup_is_descendant_of). It would allow moving tasks down the cgroup hierarchy more than one level at a time and as far as I can see, would pose no additional problems. Please keep CC'd, I'm not subscribed. Best regards, Grzegorz Nosek