[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1317241905.16137.516.camel@nimitz>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:31:45 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Vasiliy Kulikov
<segoon@...nwall.com>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Pekka Enberg
<penberg@...nel.org>, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Kees Cook
<kees@...ntu.com>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: restrict access to /proc/meminfo
On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 15:47 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011, David Rientjes wrote:
> > It'll turn into another one of our infinite number of capabilities. Does
> > anything actually care about statistics at KB granularity these days?
>
> Changing that to MB may also break things. It may be better to have
> consistent system for access control to memory management counters that
> are not related to a process.
We could also just _effectively_ make it output in MB:
foo = foo & ~(1<<20)
or align-up. We could also give the imprecise numbers to unprivileged
users and let privileged ones see the page-level ones.
-- Dave
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
