[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrU4_y0qSJu4epTO9aNEVZzt9cXY52=bHyGutbAMuEd-VA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 19:33:14 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net] bpf: add bpf_sk_netns_id() helper
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 09:15:10AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com> wrote:
>> > Note that all bpf programs types are global.
>>
>> I don't think this has a clear enough meaning to work with. In
>
> Please clarify what you mean. The quoted part says
> "bpf programs are global". What is not "clear enough" there?
What does "bpf programs are global" mean? I am genuinely unable to
figure out what you mean. Here are some example guesses of what you
might mean:
- BPF programs are compiled independently of a namespace. This is
certainly true, but I don't think it matters.
- You want BPF programs to affect everything on the system. But this
doesn't seem right to be -- they only affect things in the relevant
cgroup, so they're not global in that sense.
- You want BPF programs to affect everything in their cgroup
regardless of namespace. This does seem to be what you think, but it
doesn't say *why*, which is the relevant bit.
- The set of BPF program types and the verification rules are
independent of cgroup and namespace. This is true, but I don't think
it matters.
That's all I came up with. So, I'll repeat: what does "bpf programs
are global" mean?
>
>> I think that this patch plus a minor change to prevent installing
>> cgroup+bpf programs if the installer isn't in the init netns + fs ns
>> would work because it would allow new, migratable semantics to be
>> added down the road to relax the restriction.
>
> Forcing installer to be in init netns is not acceptable to David
> who added cgroup_sock in the first place. I'm not sure why
> we have to discuss that bit in circles.
>
Because we're one week or so from 4.10 final, the 4.10-rc code is
problematic even for ip vrf, and there isn't a clear solution yet.
There are a bunch of requirements that seem to conflict, and something
has to give.
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists