PERFORCE change 186633 for review

[Edward Tomasz Napierala]

http://p4web.freebsd.org/@@186633?ac=10

Change 186633 by trasz at trasz_victim on 2010/12/04 19:49:49

	Update TODO.

Affected files ...

.. //depot/projects/soc2009/trasz_limits/TODO#32 edit

Differences ...

==== //depot/projects/soc2009/trasz_limits/TODO#32 (text+ko) ====

@@ -25,9 +25,15 @@
 
 Milestone 3:
 
- - inheritance: different resources need to sum things up differently
- - per-jail containers
- - per-jail resource limits
+ - 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
+   offending process.
+
+ - Do we need separate container hierarchy, or should we just drop it and use
+   ucred?
+
+ - Remove CONTAINERS #ifdefs.
 
 Issues:
 
@@ -73,8 +79,8 @@
    2. Replace single container_lock with individual per-container mutexes.
 
  - RUSAGE_NOFILE accounts for size of file descriptor table, rather than the number
-   of file descriptors.  This shouldn't be a problem, but might be worth remembering
-   about.
+   of file descriptors.  This shouldn't be a problem, but might be worth keeping
+   in mind.
 
  - We should have a limit for the number of files that were mmapped and then closed,
    and remain mapped in memory.
@@ -88,7 +94,7 @@
 
  - Bring back per-group limits.
 
- - Some things need to be accounted for per-euid, and some per-egid.  Geez.
+ - Some things need to be accounted for per-euid, and some per-ruid.  Geez.
 
  - In maxproc limit, make sure the 'p' argument is a child process.  Otherwise,
    if one adds rule with 'sig*' action, the signal will be sent to the parent