# Re: \[PATCH v5\] cgroup: Add new capability to allow a process to migrate other tasks between cgroups

- From: John Stultz \<hidden\>
- Date: 2016-12-13 18:47:25 
- List: linux-api
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2016/12/4894532
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/cgroups/2016/12/4893906/t.md

```text
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Tejun Heo [ref] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 08:08:16AM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
>> [ref] wrote:
>> > On 13 December 2016 at 02:39, John Stultz [ref] wrote:
>> > So, back to the discussion of silos. I understand the argument for
>> > wanting a new silo. But, in that case can we at least try not to make
>> > it a single-use silo?
>> >
>> > How about CAP_CGROUP_CONTROL or some such, with the idea that this
>> > might be a capability that allows the holder to step outside usual
>> > cgroup rules? At the moment, that capability would allow only one such
>> > step, but maybe there would be others in the future.
>>
>> This sounds reasonable to me. Tejun/Andy: Objections?
>
> Control group control?  The word control has a specific meaning for
> cgroups and that second control doesn't make much sense to me.

But this would go against the long tradition of RAS syndrome and
things like "struct task_struct".  :)

>  Given
> how this is mostly to patch up a hole in v1's delegation model and how
> migration operations are different from others, I doubt that we will
> end up overloading it.  Maybe just CAP_CGROUP?

Sounds ok to me.

thanks
-john
```