Obviously, striking facilities on Chinese soil (especially ostensibly civilian ones like hotels) could be viewed by China as highly provocative. So "use of force (limited)" might usefully be split into two options, one for further limiting the scope to facilities within North Korea and one without that restriction.
This is again one of those very interesting distinctions from a legal prospective. Under the War on Terror the US has taken the legal position that it is lawful Use of Force to go into any country where enemy combatants may be (US has openly used drone strikes in countries who are not state sponsors of terror; one example is US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen). There are some distinctions #1 Anwar al-Awlaki was a non-state actors and #2 politically/militarily China v Yemen.
Maybe even more interestingly, if the Cyberattacks were not N.Koreans, or if in the future they come from non-state actors (terrorists in the US, terrorists abroad, some 15 year old kid) would the US justify the same response as what we are planning now?
Even more basically, what exactly about this attack justifies the Use of Force? If it is what they did? If so, what exactly is it they did that justifies Use of Force? Is it a moral argument that they encroached my and your liberty to see a Seth Rogan movie? Is it because it is Sony? (would the US still react with the Use of Force if North Korea attacked a US porn website)? I guess these are all issues for the UN to decide and vote on through the security council and the resolutions will be adopted to define these things for the future.
Obviously, striking facilities on Chinese soil (especially ostensibly civilian ones like hotels) could be viewed by China as highly provocative. So "use of force (limited)" might usefully be split into two options, one for further limiting the scope to facilities within North Korea and one without that restriction.