[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130211174259.GA18179@mail.hallyn.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:42:59 +0000
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To: Aristeu Rozanski <aris@...hat.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 9/9] devcg: propagate local changes down the
hierarchy
Quoting Aristeu Rozanski (aris@...hat.com):
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 04:04:02AM +0000, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Aristeu Rozanski (aris@...hat.com):
> > > devcg: propagate local changes down the hierarchy
> > >
> > > This patch makes all changes propagate down in hierarchy respecting when
> > > possible local configurations.
> > >
> > > Behavior changes will clean up exceptions in all the children except when the
> > > parent changes the behavior from allow to deny and the child's behavior was
> > > already deny, in which case the local exceptions will be reused. The inverse
> > > is not possible: you can't have a parent with behavior deny and a child with
> > > behavior accept.
> > >
> > > New exceptions allowing additional access to devices won't be propagated, but
> > > it'll be possible to add an exception to access all of part of the newly
> > > allowed device(s).
> > >
> > > New exceptions disallowing access to devices will be propagated down and the
> > > local group's exceptions will be revalidated for the new situation.
> > > Example:
> > > A
> > > / \
> > > B
> > >
> > > group behavior exceptions
> > > A allow "b 8:* rwm", "c 116:1 rw"
> > > B deny "c 1:3 rwm", "c 116:2 rwm", "b 3:* rwm"
> > >
> > > If a new exception is added to group A:
> > > # echo "c 116:* r" > A/devices.deny
> > > it'll propagate down and after revalidating B's local exceptions, the exception
> > > "c 116:2 rwm" will be removed.
> > >
> > > In case parent behavior or exceptions change and local settings are not
> > > allowed anymore, they'll be deleted.
> >
> > Do you have a use case which would be broken if we simply refuse to
> > allow behavior changes for any cgroup with children?
> >
> > It seems like that would drastically simplify much of this. We would
> > no longer need local.exceptions at all, right? Your comment says
> >
> > * local set rules, saved so when a parent propagates new rules, the
> > * local preferences can be preserved
> >
> > but if there were no parent behavior changes, then any exception change
> > in a parent could be enforced by simply removing violating exceptions
> > in the child, and subsequently refusing the addition of new rules in the
> > child which are not allowed in the parent. Both of which you already do.
> >
> > Or am I thinking wrongly?
>
> That would be an option even simpler than not keeping local settings. In
> production I doubt the sysadmin will keep playing with permissions,
> although until one gets right, it'll be annoying as hell to have to
> remove the whole hierarchy because you forgot to add a certain device to
> the list.
Note I said only forbid behavior changes - not exception changes - to
cgroups with children.
-serge
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists