Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754744AbcJETXi (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:23:38 -0400 Received: from mail-vk0-f67.google.com ([209.85.213.67]:33548 "EHLO mail-vk0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754597AbcJETXg (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:23:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1475556090-6278-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> <1475556090-6278-2-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> <20161005190909.GA31873@dtor-ws> From: Dmitry Torokhov Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 12:23:34 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cgroup: Add generic cgroup subsystem permission checks To: John Stultz Cc: lkml , Colin Cross , Tejun Heo , Li Zefan , Jonathan Corbet , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Android Kernel Team , Rom Lemarchand , Dmitry Shmidt , Todd Kjos , Christian Poetzsch , Amit Pundir , Ricky Zhou Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2377 Lines: 64 On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:16 PM, John Stultz wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Dmitry Torokhov > wrote: >> [ Some comments are form Ricky Zhou , some from >> myself ] >> On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 09:41:29PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: >>> From: Colin Cross >>> > [snip] >>> + >>> + cset = task_css_set(task); >> >> Do we need to take css_set_lock here? If not, why? >> >>> + list_add(&cset->mg_node, &tset.src_csets); >>> + ret = cgroup_allow_attach(dst_cgrp, &tset); >>> + list_del(&tset.src_csets); >> >> This should be >> >> list_del_init(&cset->mg_node); >> >> since you are deleting task's cset from the tset list, not other way >> around. It only happen to work because there is exactly 1 member in >> tset.src_csets and list_del done on it is exactly list_del_init on the >> node, so you are not leaving with uncorrupted mg_node in task's cset. >> >>> + if (ret) >>> + ret = -EACCES; >>> + } >>> >>> if (!ret && cgroup_on_dfl(dst_cgrp)) { >>> struct super_block *sb = of->file->f_path.dentry->d_sb; >> >> Isn't this, generally speaking, racy? We take current task's cset and >> check if we have rights to move it over. But we do not have any locking >> between check and actual move, so can the cset change between these 2 >> operations? >> >> And if cset can't really change and it is only 1 task, then why do we >> bother with forming taskset at all? Can we make allow_attach take just >> the target task argument? > > After Tejun's feedback, I've tried reworking the same functionality in > a much simpler fashion by introducing a new capability bit. > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/4/479 > > I believe that approach doesn't have the drawbacks you've pointed out > here, but would appreciate your input on it. > > As for your feedback on this patch, I'll have to look into it a bit, > as I don't have good answers for you for you right off. But these do > seem like valid concerns and since the Android common.git kernels are > using the code I submitted here, this issues likely need to be fixed > there. Yeah, we are looking into the same for ChromeOS, so we have this: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/393907/ Thanks. -- Dmitry