| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20150518221246.GL24861@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 18:12:46 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Cc: lizefan@...wei.com, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
richard@....at, fweisbec@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 6/8] cgroup: allow a cgroup subsystem to reject a fork
Hello,
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:51:05AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> Add a new cgroup subsystem callback can_fork that conditionally
> states whether or not the fork is accepted or rejected by a cgroup
> policy. In addition, add a cancel_fork callback so that if an error
> occurs later in the forking process, any state modified by can_fork can
> be reverted.
>
> Allow for a private opaque pointer to be passed from the cgroup_can_fork
> to cgroup_post_fork, allowing for the fork state to be stored by each
> subsystem separately.
>
> Also add a tagging system for cgroup_subsys.h to allow for CGROUP_<TAG>
> enumerations to be be defined and used. Also explicitly add a
> CGROUP_CANFORK_COUNT macro to make arrays easier to define.
>
> This is in preparation for implementing the pids cgroup subsystem.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
This generally looks good to me now.
Ingo, Peter, I'm planning on routing this through cgroup branch after
minor revisions. If there's any objection, please let me know.
> diff --git a/include/linux/cgroup.h b/include/linux/cgroup.h
> index 35ba593..886a883 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cgroup.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cgroup.h
> @@ -28,11 +28,16 @@
> /* define the enumeration of all cgroup subsystems */
> #define SUBSYS(_x) _x ## _cgrp_id,
> enum cgroup_subsys_id {
> +#define SUBSYS_TAG(_t) CGROUP_ ## _t, \
> + __unused_tag_ ## _t = CGROUP_ ## _t - 1,
Why not put this together with SUBSYS() def?
> #include <linux/cgroup_subsys.h>
> +#undef SUBSYS_TAG
And this with undef?
> CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT,
> };
> #undef SUBSYS
>
> +#define CGROUP_CANFORK_COUNT (CGROUP_CANFORK_END - CGROUP_CANFORK_START)
> +
> struct cgroup_root;
> struct cgroup_subsys;
> struct cgroup;
...
> @@ -3,6 +3,11 @@
> *
> * DO NOT ADD ANY SUBSYSTEM WITHOUT EXPLICIT ACKS FROM CGROUP MAINTAINERS.
> */
> +#ifndef SUBSYS_TAG
> +# define __TMP_SUBSYS_TAG
> +# define SUBSYS_TAG(_x)
It'd be nice if there's a comment explaining inclusion rules for this
file. Also, let's not do the indenting thing. I don't think it adds
much and it tends to get inconsistent and weird (e.g. why isn't
#include indented when inside #ifdef?) over time. These aren't really
eye dazzling definitions.
> @@ -2324,9 +2327,10 @@ static int cgroup_migrate(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct task_struct *leader,
> */
> tset.csets = &tset.dst_csets;
>
> - for_each_e_css(css, i, cgrp)
> + for_each_e_css(css, i, cgrp) {
> if (css->ss->attach)
> css->ss->attach(css, &tset);
> + }
I don't object but is there a reason for this change? If it's just
for stylistic consistency, please mention it in the description.
> @@ -5180,6 +5185,23 @@ static const struct file_operations proc_cgroupstats_operations = {
> .release = single_release,
> };
>
> +static void **subsys_canfork_privatep(void *ss_private[CGROUP_CANFORK_COUNT],
> + int i)
Heh, how about subsys_canfork_priv_p()? privatep and private are
kinda tricky to tell apart.
> +{
> + if (CGROUP_CANFORK_START <= i && i < CGROUP_CANFORK_END)
> + return &ss_private[i - CGROUP_CANFORK_START];
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static void *subsys_canfork_private(void *ss_private[CGROUP_CANFORK_COUNT],
> + int i)
and subsys_canfork_priv() here.
> +{
> + void **private;
> + if ((private = subsys_canfork_privatep(ss_private, i)) != NULL)
> + return *private;
> + return NULL;
> +}
...
> @@ -5195,6 +5217,61 @@ void cgroup_fork(struct task_struct *child)
> }
>
> /**
> + * cgroup_can_fork - called on a new task before the process is exposed
> + * @child: the task in question.
> + *
> + * This calls the subsystem can_fork() callbacks. If the can_fork() callback
> + * returns an error, the fork aborts with that error code. This allows for
> + * a cgroup subsystem to conditionally allow or deny new forks.
> + */
> +int cgroup_can_fork(struct task_struct *child,
> + void *ss_private[CGROUP_CANFORK_COUNT])
> +{
> + struct cgroup_subsys *ss;
> + int i, j, retval;
> +
> + for_each_subsys_which(ss, i, &have_canfork_callback) {
> + retval = ss->can_fork(child,
> + subsys_canfork_privatep(ss_private, i));
How about shortening things a bit? It doesn't lose any clarity and we
don't have to do ugly line splits.
ret = ss->can_fork(child, subsys_canfork_priv_p(ss_priv, i));
> + if (retval)
> + goto out_revert;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +
> +out_revert:
> + for_each_subsys(ss, j) {
> + if (j >= i)
> + break;
> +
> + if (ss->cancel_fork)
> + ss->cancel_fork(child,
> + subsys_canfork_private(ss_private, j));
> + }
> +
> + return retval;
> +}
...
> @@ -1516,6 +1517,16 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(unsigned long clone_flags,
> p->task_works = NULL;
>
> /*
> + * Ensure that the cgroup subsystem policies allow the new process to be
> + * forked. It should be noted the the new process's css_set can be changed
> + * between here and cgroup_post_fork() if an organisation operation is in
> + * progress.
> + */
Let's move the latter half of the comment to cgroup_can_fork(). fork
path doesn't need to care about this level of cgroup-specific details.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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