linux-kernel - Re: [PATH v2] cgroup: add cgroup_favordynmods= command-line option

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <4f4404a3-0bc3-b75f-6ff6-1725fd252f87@oracle.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Sep 2023 12:34:27 +0530
From:   Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh.babulal@...cle.com>
To:     Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@...zon.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, tj@...nel.org,
        lizefan.x@...edance.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     lcapitulino@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATH v2] cgroup: add cgroup_favordynmods= command-line option



On 9/8/23 00:17, Luiz Capitulino wrote:

[...]

>>>> Consider a case where the kernel is compiled with
>>>> CONFIG_CGROUP_FAVOR_DYNMODS=n and kernel command line is passed with
>>>> cgroup_favordynmods=true, this would set the have_favordynmods to true.
>>>> In cgroup_favordynmods_setup(), should it return 0 with a pr_warn(),
>>>> when CONFIG_CGROUP_FAVOR_DYNMODS=n in the above case, or is this
>>>> expected behavior?
>>>
>>> According to the documentation of __setup:
>>>
>>> /*
>>>   * NOTE: __setup functions return values:
>>>   * @fn returns 1 (or non-zero) if the option argument is "handled"
>>>   * and returns 0 if the option argument is "not handled".
>>>   */
>>>
>>> So the return value should tell whether the input parameter is a recognizable true or false value, not whether it is true or false. kstrtobool returns 0 if it is a recognizable T/F value or -EINVAL otherwise. So the check is correct. I did double check that before I ack'ed the patch.
>>>
>>
>> Apologies for not being clear in the previous email. It was in two parts,
>> where the first one was more of a question, where if a kernel is compiled
>> with CONFIG_CGROUP_FAVOR_DYNMODS config option disabled and the user
>> attempts to pass cgroup_favordynmods=true in the kernel command line.
>>
>> In this scenario, the have_favordynmods is set to true regardless of
>> the CONFIG_CGROUP_FAVOR_DYNMODS config option being enabled/disabled in
>> the kernel. This allows the user to set CGRP_ROOT_FAVOR_DYNMODS flag
>> without enabling the CONFIG_CGROUP_FAVOR_DYNMODS kernel config.
> 
> Correct, that's exactly the goal of this patch: to give users the
> option to enable/disable favordynmods at boot-time regardless of
> CONFIG_FAVOR_DYNMODS.
> 
> This is especially useful with cgroup v1 where remounting with
> favordynmods is not supported.

Thank you so much for explaining. I understand the idea of the
patch better now.

>> Shouldn't the cgroup_favordynmods kernel parameter be valid only when
>> the kernel is compiled with CONFIG_CGROUP_FAVOR_DYNMODS=y and allows the
>> user to only disable it in the kernel command line instead of allowing
>> them to set/unset have_favordynmods when CONFIG_CGROUP_FAVOR_DYNMODS is
>> disabled.
> 
> This was my first idea as well, but since we'd allow for enabling why
> not allow for disabling as well? Besides, the resulting code is
> fairly simple.

Agreed, If it's independent of CONFIG_CGROUP_FAVOR_DYNMODS config
option, providing both enable and disable, is useful.

>> If the above assumption is right, that's where the second part was of
>> email, where I was suggesting the restriction by using ifdef guards in
>> cgroup_favordynmods_setup(), something like:
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
>> index 2b7d74304606..5c7d1a0b1dbe 100644
>> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
>> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
>> @@ -6768,7 +6768,11 @@ __setup("cgroup_debug", enable_cgroup_debug);
>>
>>   static int __init cgroup_favordynmods_setup(char *str)
>>   {
>> +#ifdef CGROUP_FAVOR_DYNMODS
>>          return (kstrtobool(str, &have_favordynmods) == 0);
>> +#endif
>> +       pr_warn("Favor Dynmods not supported\n");
>> +       return 0;
>>   }
> 
> Why should we do this? What's the benefit for the user?

This code was constructed on the idea of have_favordynmods, should
be available only when the kernel is compiled with CONFIG_CGROUP_FAVOR_DYNMODS
and it's of no benefit.
 
>>   __setup("cgroup_favordynmods=", cgroup_favordynmods_setup);
>>

-- 
Thanks,
Kamalesh