linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] cgroup: Rely on namespace_sem in current_cgns_cgroup_from

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 23 May 2023 09:12:31 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc:     Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Jiri Wiesner <jwiesner@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] cgroup: Rely on namespace_sem in
 current_cgns_cgroup_from_root explicitly

Hello,

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 12:42:46PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
...
> Nope, we're not putting namespace_sem in a header. The code it protects
> is massively sensitive and it interacts with mount_lock and other locks.
> This stays private to fs/namespace.c as far as I'm concerned.

Michal, would it make sense to add a separate locking in cgroup.c? It'll add
a bit more overhead but not massively so and we should be able to get
similar gain without entangling with namespace locking.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun