Re: [Lse-tech] Re: A common layer for Accounting packages

Chris Wright
2005-02-25T17:46:17Z

* Jay Lan (jlan@sgi.com) wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >Kaigai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com> wrote:
> >
> >>In my understanding, what Andrew Morton said is "If target functionality
> >>can
> >>implement in user space only, then we should not modify the kernel-tree".
> >
> >
> >fork, exec and exit upcalls sound pretty good to me. As long as
> >
> >a) they use the same common machinery and
> >
> >b) they are next-to-zero cost if something is listening on the netlink
> > socket but no accounting daemon is running.
> >
> >Question is: is this sufficient for CSA?
>
> Yes, fork, exec, and exit upcalls are sufficient for CSA.

As soon as you want to throttle tasks at the Job level, this would be
insufficient. But, IIRC, that's not one of PAGG/Job/CSA's requirements
right?

thanks,
-chris
--
Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net