linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] cgroup/misc: Add hwcap masks to the misc controller

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]

Message-ID: <CANaxB-x5qVv_yYR7aYYdrd26uFRk=Zsd243+TeBWMn47wi++eA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2025 22:39:33 -0800
From: Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>
To: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...weicloud.com>
Cc: Andrei Vagin <avagin@...gle.com>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, 
	criu@...ts.linux.dev, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, 
	Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>, 
	Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cgroup/misc: Add hwcap masks to the misc controller

On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 6:52 PM Chen Ridong <chenridong@...weicloud.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2025/12/5 8:58, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> > This patch series introduces a mechanism to mask hardware capabilities
> > (AT_HWCAP) reported to user-space processes via the misc cgroup
> > controller.
> >
> > To support C/R operations (snapshots, live migration) in heterogeneous
> > clusters, we must ensure that processes utilize CPU features available
> > on all potential target nodes. To solve this, we need to advertise a
> > common feature set across the cluster. This patchset allows users to
> > configure a mask for AT_HWCAP, AT_HWCAP2. This ensures that applications
> > within a container only detect and use features guaranteed to be
> > available on all potential target hosts.
> >
>
> Could you elaborate on how this mask mechanism would be used in practice?
>
> Based on my understanding of the implementation, the parent’s mask is effectively a subset of the
> child’s mask, meaning the parent does not impose any additional restrictions on its children. This
> behavior appears to differ from typical cgroup controllers, where children are further constrained
> by their parent’s settings. This raises the question: is the cgroup model an appropriate fit for
> this functionality?

Chen,

Thank you for the question. I think I was not clear enough in the
description.

The misc.mask file works by masking out available features; any feature
bit set in the mask will not be advertised to processes within that
cgroup. When a child cgroup is created, its effective mask is  a
combination of its own mask and its parent's effective mask. This means
any feature masked by either the parent or the child will be hidden from
processes in the child cgroup.

For example:
- If a parent cgroup masks out feature A (mask=0b001), processes in it
  won't see feature A.
- If we create a child cgroup under it and set its mask to hide feature
  B (mask=0b010), the effective mask for processes in the child cgroup
  becomes 0b011. They will see neither feature A nor B.

This ensures that a feature hidden by a parent cannot be re-enabled by a
child. A child can only impose further restrictions by masking out
additional features. I think this behaviour is well aligned with the cgroup
model.

Thanks,
Andrei