Message-ID: <20170829041118.m6bsjvif2bxwtk6g@ast-mbp>
Date:   Mon, 28 Aug 2017 21:11:20 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, ast@...nel.org,
        tj@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, luto@...capital.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/8] bpf: Add support for recursively running
 cgroup sock filters

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:22:31PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 8/28/17 7:12 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >>>> To consider what happens on doubling back and changing programs in the
> >>>> hierarchy, start with $MNT/a/b/c from 3 above (non-recursive on 'a',
> >>>> recursive on 'b' and recursive on 'c') for each of the following cases:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Program attached to 'b' is detached, recursive flag is reset in the
> >>>> request. Attempt fails EINVAL because the recursion flag has to be set.
> >>>
> >>> didn't get this point. you mean 'detach' will fail?
> >>
> >> Yes, because it tried to reset the flag in the process.
> >>
> >> This is something we can make user friendly - the detach succeeds, but
> >> the recurse flag is ignored and the recurse flag in the group is not
> >> reset unless it is the base group with the recurse flag (i.e., the
> >> parent is marked non-recurse).
> > 
> > if we don't reset group flags to default it will be even more difficult
> > for users to use, since attach with recursive flag + immediate detach sets
> > some internal flag on the cgroup and user space has no way of
> > either querying this flag or deleting it.
> 
> We have discussed this before -- the need to know which cgroup has a
> program and now what is the status of flags. That need is a different
> problem than this patch set.
> 
> I'll address the reset of the flags below to keep that discussion together.
> 
> > 
> >>>
> >>>> 2. Program attached to 'b' is detached, recursive flag is set. Allowed.
> >>>
> >>> meaing that detach from 'b' has to pass recurse flag to be detached?
> >>> That's also odd.
> >>> imo detach should always succeed and the process doing detach
> >>> shouldn't need to know what flags were used in attach.
> >>
> >> Then, we agree to make it user friendly and handle resetting the recurse
> >> flag automatically.
> > 
> > in that sense yes attach/delete pair should be side-effect free.
> > 
> >>>> Process in 'b' opens a socket. No program attached to 'b' so no program
> >>>> is run. Recursive flag is set to program from 'a' is run. Stop.
> >>>>
> >>>> We should allow the recursive flag to be reset if the parent is not
> >>>> recursive allowing an unwind of settings applied. I'll add that change.
> >>>
> >>> I don't get this part.
> >>> Anyway looking forward to the next patch set with tests and comments like above.
> >>
> >> Per above discussion, you don't want 'a' run since it is not marked
> >> recurse. My last sentence is the user friendly part in resetting the
> >> flag in the cgroup.
> > 
> > I'm still not grasping fully the semantics of what you're proposing.
> > You keep saying that override and recurse flags are indepedent, but
> > the more we talk the more it's clear that there is a complicated
> > relationship between them. Like no_override overrules everything, etc.
> 
> yes, I have said that a few times. Override should block everything in
> terms of installing programs. If it is not enabled, the status of the
> recurse flag is not relevant at attach / detach time as the call should
> fail. So installing a program with the recurse flag only works if
> override is allowed.
> 
> 
> > I'm looking for the simplest to use logic. Not implementation.
> > Implementation can be complex, but uapi should be as simple to
> > explain and as simple to understand as possible.
> > So how about allowing recurse+overide combination only?
> > All descendents must be recurse+override too and
> > no program allowed to be set on parent unless it's recurse+override
> > as well. Then detach anywhere is simple, since all programs in
> > such chain are always recurse+override.
> 
> 
> Let's walk through examples based on the new ground rule - recursion
> stops at last cgroup with flag set.
> 
> Assuming override is allowed ...
> 
> ${MNT}/a/b/c/d
> 
> - 'a' has no program
> 
> - 'b' has a program, override allowed, recurse set
> 
> - 'c' and 'd' inherit the program from 'b' by recursion, not inheritance
> (ie., bpf.effective is not updated with the program from 'b', but the
> recurse flag is set on 'c' and 'd').
> 
> At this point 'c' and 'd' can ONLY take programs that are recursive.
> 
> - 'c' gets a program installed
> - 'd' gets a program installed.
> 
> 
> Process in 'd' has programs run in this order: 'd', 'c', 'b'
> 
> 
> Now, program 'c' is detached. It is in the middle of the recursive set.
> It MUST keep the recurse flag set as it inherited the restriction from
> 'b'. The recurse flag on 'c' can ONLY be reset when the program is
> detached from 'b' as it is the start of the recursive chain.
> 
> I'll stop here to make sure we agree on the above. Considering all
> permutations is a maze.

Agree on the above, but you're mixing semantics of the new recurse
flag and implementation of it. Ex: we don't have to copy this flag
from prog->attr into cgroup. So this reset or non-reset discussion
only makes sense in the context of your current implementation.
We can implement the logic differently. Like don't copy that flag
at all and at attach time walk parent->parent->parent and see
what programs are attached. All of them should have prog->attr & recurse_bit set
In such implementation detach from 'b' is a nop from reset/non-reset
point of view. When socket creation in 'c' is invoked the program
'c' is called first then the code keeps walking parents until root
invoking 'a' along the way.
I'm not saying it will be an efficient implementation. The point
is to discuss UAPI independent of implementation.

> ###
> 
> Also, let's agree on this intention. Based on the new ground rule, I
> want to point out this example:
> 
> If 'a' gets a program installed with no recurse flag set, ONLY processes
> in 'a' have the 'a' program run. Processes in groups 'b', 'c' and 'd'
> all stop at cgroup 'b' program.

I'm proposing that such situation should not be allowed to happen.
In a->b->c->d cgroup scenario if override+recurse prog attached to 'b'
then only the same override+recurse can be attached to c, d, a.
So at detach time there can be gaps (like only 'b' and 'd' have
override+recurse progs), but walking up until root from any point
will guarantee that only override+recurse programs are seen.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists