[lkml]   [2016]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Potential issues (security and otherwise) with the current cgroup-bpf API
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 05:56:24PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> 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.

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-12-20 10:12    [W:0.104 / U:2.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site