From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH v4] cgroup: Use CAP_SYS_RESOURCE to allow a process to migrate other tasks between cgroups Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 08:27:21 -0500 Message-ID: <20161209132721.GA30394@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <20161206165519.GA17648@mtj.duckdns.org> <20161206181221.GA2625@mtj.duckdns.org> <20161206182315.GB2625@mtj.duckdns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=CRX8Zcbb2pYNXZsHcU5odm2DAUJP1Sadumzpvkovx/g=; b=IcKPU99Y5zJKem9qDq/xi9bs1YPIo+cLFN7g38sOX8dvHDG45IlJFGQtioPF0vthIl LQLy/XR9w6qKNjsjMR8h1U93C2CGNjsA9qKKfgi9ag0e4kTtd2gPOvukSX3XyNZ24FCX ucnbIuJpjPs6WLyzx/coFXpiJr6Js1bRqWyzheiX5S02PWePIAh8mX6R8Ts6hk9BOruJ 5iSzdpw0kQ+GiGqNAD23wniBbUo96HPfRA2kci2bAAVOg4Oeutdi7FedH2xeHzc3HbGT gTd4LUAIzF9XtNcpG3nOZ0lpmNdVLDndMisVs0zLYO0pRvyGdLsymmvduyGx93ffLnCD REjg== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: John Stultz Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Alexei Starovoitov , Andy Lutomirski , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= , Daniel Mack , "David S. Miller" , kafai@fb.com, Florian Westphal , Harald Hoyer , Network Development , Sargun Dhillon , Pablo Neira Ayuso , lkml , Li Zefan , Jonathan Corbet , "open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" , Android Kernel Team , Rom Lemarchand , Colin Cross , Dmitry Hello, John. On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 09:39:38PM -0800, John Stultz wrote: > So just to clarify the discussion for my purposes and make sure I > understood, per-cgroup CAP rules was not desired, and instead we > should either utilize an existing cap (are there still objections to > CAP_SYS_RESOURCE? - this isn't clear to me) or create a new one (ie, > bring back the older CAP_CGROUP_MIGRATE patch). Let's create a new one. It looks to be a bit too different to share with an existing one. > Tejun: Do you have a more finished version of your patch that I should > add my changes on top of? Oh, just submit the patch on top of the current for-next. I can queue mine on top of yours. They are mostly orthogonal. Thanks. -- tejun