[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1397664837.19767.410.camel@willson.li.ssimo.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:13:57 -0400
From: Simo Sorce <ssorce@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Daniel Walsh <dwalsh@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
lpoetter@...hat.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, kay@...hat.com,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: Implement SO_PASSCGROUP to enable passing
cgroup path
On Wed, 2014-04-16 at 07:37 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 5:57 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> >
> > Please, just stop.
>
> No.
>
> This thread is proposing an ABI. This means that, if the ABI ends up
> in Linus's kernel, then it has to be supported forever. Now is the
> time to find and fix any issues with it before they become much harder
> to fix.
Ok, but so far I haven't seen a single objection from you that has solid
grounds.
The only one that *may* be reasonable is the "secret" cgroup name one,
however nobody seem to come up with a reason why it is legitimate to
allow to keep cgroup names secret.
And if you can come up with such a good reason the SO_NOPASSCGROUP
option seem the right solution.
> This ABI is especially tricky because programs will use it even if
> they don't explicitly try to. So just adding the ABI may break
> existing assumptions that are relevant to security or correctness.
It's not clear to me what you mean by this, either you explicitly use
SO_PASSCGROUP or not, it's not like you can involuntarily add a flag ...
Simo.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists