What do you think about putting this behaviour behind a sysctl? Seems
better than to start introducing a new mechanism of marking tasks?
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 6:05 AM, Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:09:46AM +0000, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
>> This patch allows processes with CAP_SYS_RESOURCE to exceed the qgroup
>> limit. It's useful for administrative programs, such as log rotation,
>> that may need to temporarily use more disk space in order to free up
>> a greater amount of overall disk space without yielding more disk
>> space to the rest of userland.
>
>> static bool qgroup_check_limits(const struct btrfs_qgroup *qg, u64
>> num_bytes)
>> {
>> + if (capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
>> + return true;
>> +
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to make random root-uid processes ignore
> qgroups completely. Just because the daemon in question doesn't use a
> separate uid is no reason to not protect you from it consuming all the disk
> space.
>
> A temporary request "please let me exceed limits" would make sense, though.
>
> The problem with CAP_SYS_RESOURCE is that it's always on unless explicitly
> dropped.
>
> --
> ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Meow!
> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
> ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Collisions shmolisions, let's see them find a collision or second
> ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ preimage for double rot13!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
