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.