netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: Implement SO_PASSCGROUP to enable passing cgroup path

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: <20140421150307.GA4367@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 Apr 2014 11:03:07 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Simo Sorce <ssorce@...hat.com>, Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@...hat.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	"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 Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:46:22PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:10:17PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >> At this point I think journald people need to give a little bit more
> >> details on how they plan to use SO_PASSCGROUP.
> >>
> >> For my use cases I care only about streams and SO_PEERCGROUP that does
> >> not have any of the (perceived) issues of SO_PASSCGROUP.
> >
> > Ok, so we agree that SO_PEERCGROUP is not a problem. And it solves the
> > problem for some of the use cases.
> >
> > And there is lot of contention on the SO_PASSCGROUP option.
> >
> > So how about taking one step at a time. Get SO_PEERCGROUP in first and
> > then get into more details on how SO_PASSCGROUP will exactly be used and
> > then decide what to do.
> 
> My only objection to SO_PEERCGROUP is that I don't believe that a
> legitimate use case exists.  I think the feature itself is safe to
> add.

So what happened to logger use case where logger accepts stream
connections and logs the cgroup of client too.

W.r.t systemd, looks like journald is accepting connections at
/run/systemd/journal/stdout. (stdout_stream_new() and
server_open_stdout_socket()).

Thanks
Vivek
--
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