[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1397667241.19767.434.camel@willson.li.ssimo.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:54:01 -0400
From: Simo Sorce <ssorce@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Daniel Walsh <dwalsh@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
lpoetter@...hat.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, kay@...hat.com,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: Implement SO_PASSCGROUP to enable passing
cgroup path
On Wed, 2014-04-16 at 12:21 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:13:57PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > The only one that *may* be reasonable is the "secret" cgroup name one,
> > however nobody seem to come up with a reason why it is legitimate to
> > allow to keep cgroup names secret.
>
> Ugh, please don't play security games with cgroup names. It is one of
> the identifying properties of a task, like a pid, and will be used in
> other parts of the kernel to match groups of tasks. If we play
> security peekaboo with cgroup names, it has to be transitive and puts
> burdens on all its future uses. Unless there are *REALLY* strong
> rationales, which can also justify hiding pids, this isn't happening.
FWIW, I totally agree with you, it's Andy Lutomirski that is coming up
with this "secret" cgropus name idea, nobody else (so far) seem to agree
it makes sense.
Simo.
--
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