Re: Potential issues (security and otherwise) with the current cgroup-bpf API

From
Peter Zijlstra <hidden>
Date
2016-12-20 09:12:03
Also in
linux-api, lkml
Reply to
Andy Lutomirski, 2016-12-20
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 05:56:24PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
quoted
quoted
Huh?  My example in the original email attaches a program in a
sub-hierarchy.  Are you saying that 4.11 could make that example stop
working?
Are you suggesting sub-cgroups should not be allowed to override the filter of a parent cgroup?
Yes, exactly.  I think there are two sensible behaviors:

a) sub-cgroups cannot have a filter at all of the parent has a filter.
(This is the "punt" approach -- it lets different semantics be
assigned later without breaking userspace.)

b) sub-cgroups can have a filter if a parent does, too.  The semantics
are that the sub-cgroup filter runs first and all side-effects occur.
If that filter says "reject" then ancestor filters are skipped.  If
that filter says "accept", then the ancestor filter is run and its
side-effects happen as well.  (And so on, all the way up to the root.)
So from what I understand the proposed cgroup is not in fact
hierarchical at all.

@TJ, I thought you were enforcing all new cgroups to be properly
hierarchical, that would very much include this one.
Thread (36 messages) 36 messages, 10 authors, last reply 2017-01-19
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread / next series-diff position
kprevious message in thread / previous series-diff position
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help