Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Lutomirski <> | Date | Mon, 3 Nov 2014 15:48:10 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCHv2 7/7] cgroup: mount cgroupns-root when inside non-init cgroupns |
| |
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Aditya Kali <adityakali@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Aditya Kali <adityakali@google.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Aditya Kali <adityakali@google.com> wrote: >>>>> if (opts->flags & CGRP_ROOT_SANE_BEHAVIOR) { >>>>> pr_warn("sane_behavior: this is still under development and its behaviors will change, proceed at your own risk\n"); >>>>> - if (nr_opts != 1) { >>>>> + if (nr_opts > 1) { >>>>> pr_err("sane_behavior: no other mount options allowed\n"); >>>>> return -EINVAL; >>>> >>>> This looks wrong. But, if you make the change above, then it'll be right. >>>> >>> >>> It would have been nice if simple 'mount -t cgroup cgroup <mnt>' from >>> cgroupns does the right thing automatically. >>> >> >> This is a debatable point, but it's not what I meant. Won't your code >> let 'mount -t cgroup -o one_evil_flag cgroup mountpoint' through? >> > > I don't think so. This check "if (nr_opts > 1)" is nested under "if > (opts->flags & CGRP_ROOT_SANE_BEHAVIOR)". So we know that there is > atleast 1 option ('__DEVEL__sane_behavior') present (implicit or not). > Addition of 'one_evil_flag' will make nr_opts = 2 and result in EINVAL > here.
But the implicit __DEVEL__sane_behavior doesn't increment nr_opts, right?
--Andy
| |