Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 14:51:40 GMT From: Edward Tomasz Napierala <trasz@FreeBSD.org> To: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: PERFORCE change 187861 for review Message-ID: <201101161451.p0GEpejR050617@skunkworks.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
http://p4web.freebsd.org/@@187861?ac=10 Change 187861 by trasz@trasz_victim on 2011/01/16 14:50:56 Update TODO. Affected files ... .. //depot/projects/soc2009/trasz_limits/TODO#39 edit Differences ... ==== //depot/projects/soc2009/trasz_limits/TODO#39 (text+ko) ==== @@ -32,8 +32,6 @@ level containers could overflow), and atomic(9) doesn't support 64 bit values on 32 bit platforms. - - Rethink HRL locking. - - Consider replacing proc pointer with thread pointer in rusage_add(9) et al. In most cases caller uses 'td->td_proc' anyway, and passing thread would allow the HRL code to send a signal to the offending thread instead of the @@ -102,7 +100,7 @@ HRL-specific issues: - - Reconsider setrlimit(2) handling. + - Reconsider bringing back setrlimit(2) handling. - Reconsider bringing back per-group limits. @@ -112,7 +110,3 @@ if one adds rule with 'sig*' action, the signal will be sent to the parent instead of the child. - - Add sorting to hrl(8). - - - Should priv(9) checking be done by HRL, or by the callers? -
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201101161451.p0GEpejR050617>