[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170119090006.GI30786@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:00:08 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Potential issues (security and otherwise) with the current
cgroup-bpf API
On Wed 18-01-17 14:18:50, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Michal.
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:58:30PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > This would require using hierarchical cgroup iterators to iterate over
>
> It does behave hierarchically.
>
> > tasks. As per Andy's testing this doesn't seem to be the case. I haven't
>
> That's not what Andy's testing showed. What that showed was that
> program in a child can override the one from its ancestor.
My fault, I've misread Andy's test case. I thought that the child group
simply disabled the bpf program and the one from the parent hasn't
executed.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists