[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170831142201.GB1599492@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 07:22:01 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, ast@...nel.org,
davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/8] bpf: Add support for recursively running
cgroup sock filters
Hello, David, Alexei.
Sorry about late reply.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 08:49:23AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 8/25/17 8:49 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >
> >> + if (prog && curr_recursive && !new_recursive)
> >> + /* if a parent has recursive prog attached, only
> >> + * allow recursive programs in descendent cgroup
> >> + */
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> old_prog = cgrp->bpf.prog[type];
> >
> > ... I'm struggling to completely understand how it interacts
> > with BPF_F_ALLOW_OVERRIDE.
>
> The 2 flags are completely independent. The existing override logic is
> unchanged. If a program can not be overridden, then the new recursive
> flag is irrelevant.
I'm not sure all four combo of the two flags makes sense. Can't we
have something simpler like the following?
1. None: No further bpf programs allowed in the subtree.
2. Overridable: If a sub-cgroup installs the same bpf program, this
one yields to that one.
3. Recursive: If a sub-cgroup installs the same bpf program, that
cgroup program gets run in addition to this one.
Note that we can have combinations of overridables and recursives -
both allow further programs in the sub-hierarchy and the only
distinction is whether that specific program behaves when that
happens.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists