[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110928215235.05d4f2e5@bob.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 21:52:35 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>, 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>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: restrict access to /proc/meminfo
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:31:45 -0700
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 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)
I do not think that does what you intend 8)
I do like the idea - it avoids any interfaces vanishing and surprise
breakages while only CAP_SYS_whatever needs the real numbers
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.
