linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 0/3] bpf: freeze a task cgroup from bpf

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

Message-ID: <ZgXMww9kJiKi4Vmd@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 10:02:11 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
	Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 0/3] bpf: freeze a task cgroup from bpf

Hello,

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 12:46:03PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> To use kernel_file_open() it would need path, inode, cred.

Yeah, it's more involved and potentially more controversial. That said, just
to push the argument a bit further, at least for path, it'd be nice to have
a helper anyway which can return cgroup path. I don't know whether we'd need
direct inode access. For cred, just share some root cred?

> None of that is available now.
> Allocating all these structures just to wrap a cgroup pointer
> feels like overkill.
> Of course, it would solve the need to introduce other
> cgroup apis that are already available via text based cgroupfs
> read/write. So there are pros and cons in both approaches.
> Maybe the 3rd option would be to expose:
> cgroup_lock() as a special blend of acquire plus lock.

Oh, let's not expose that. That has been a source of problem for some use
cases and we may have to change how cgroups are locked.

> Then there will be no need for bpf_task_freeze_cgroup() with task
> argument. Instead cgroup_freeze() will be such kfunc that
> takes cgroup argument and the verifier will check that
> cgroup was acquired/locked.
> Sort-of what we check to access bpf_rb_root.

There's also cgroup.kill which would be useful for similar use cases. We can
add interface for both but idk. Let's say we have something like the
following (pardon the bad naming):

  bpf_cgroup_knob_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, char *filename, char *buf)

Would that work? I'm not necessarily in love with the idea or against adding
separate helpers but the duplication still bothers me a bit.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun