From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933673AbcLMQI2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:08:28 -0500 Received: from mail-oi0-f52.google.com ([209.85.218.52]:33546 "EHLO mail-oi0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932602AbcLMQIR (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:08:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1481593143-18756-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> From: John Stultz Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:08:16 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] cgroup: Add new capability to allow a process to migrate other tasks between cgroups To: Michael Kerrisk Cc: lkml , Tejun Heo , Li Zefan , Jonathan Corbet , "open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" , Android Kernel Team , Rom Lemarchand , Colin Cross , Dmitry Shmidt , Todd Kjos , Christian Poetzsch , Amit Pundir , Dmitry Torokhov , Kees Cook , "Serge E . Hallyn" , Andy Lutomirski , Linux API Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > On 13 December 2016 at 02:39, John Stultz wrote: > So, back to the discussion of silos. I understand the argument for > wanting a new silo. But, in that case can we at least try not to make > it a single-use silo? > > How about CAP_CGROUP_CONTROL or some such, with the idea that this > might be a capability that allows the holder to step outside usual > cgroup rules? At the moment, that capability would allow only one such > step, but maybe there would be others in the future. This sounds reasonable to me. Tejun/Andy: Objections? thanks -john