From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755229AbYHZA4T (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:56:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753206AbYHZA4J (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:56:09 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:19745 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753183AbYHZA4I (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:56:08 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=aLtvlOPpG3B9hSHeAVyzq1z+lcC+8iteN6O2Yf7yCDrAs+2cMz1wBcA4/HvmkmQD/ ql+2zrmX1BQsxjIWmVGsg== Message-ID: <6599ad830808251755h645b94abh551da5ec64cb3999@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:55:55 -0700 From: "Paul Menage" To: righiandr@users.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH -mm] cgroup: uid-based rules to add processes efficiently in the right cgroup Cc: "Vivek Goyal" , "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" , "Balbir Singh" , "linux kernel mailing list" , "Dhaval Giani" , "Kazunaga Ikeno" , "Morton Andrew Morton" , "Thomas Graf" , "Ulrich Drepper" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080701191126.GA17376@redhat.com> <20080710104852.797fe79c@cuia.bos.redhat.com> <20080710154035.GA12043@redhat.com> <20080711095501.cefff6df.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080714135719.GE16673@redhat.com> <487B665B.9080205@sun.com> <20080714152142.GJ16673@redhat.com> <48A7FE7B.3060309@gmail.com> <6599ad830808181405i3ec1f9fdp4d8ca7ab675b2c5f@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:12 AM, wrote: > > unfortunately I don't have too much details for now, so I was just > looking for the most generic solution. The PAM lib approach seems > reasonable for each daemon that represents an entry point to the > system, The PAM approach seems like the cleanest solution to me. > >> due to their "magical" nature - any task that does a setuid() now >> risks being swept off into a different cgroup. > > If the admin configures so, moving tasks that do setuid() in different > cgroups should be an expected behaviour, isn't it? Is the sysadmin aware of all the places in all system daemons that do setuid() calls? Paul