Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 8 Jan 2020 19:10:49 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
To:     Michal =?utf-8?Q?Koutn=C3=BD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
Cc:     linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] clone3: allow spawning processes into cgroups
Message-ID: <20200108181049.ysmo73celrt4bvo2@wittgenstein>
References: <20191223061504.28716-1-christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
 <20191223061504.28716-3-christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
 <20200108160102.GA17415@blackbody.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20200108160102.GA17415@blackbody.suse.cz>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 05:01:02PM +0100, Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 07:15:03AM +0100, Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > This adds support for creating a process in a different cgroup than its
> > parent.
> Binding fork and migration together looks useful.
> 
> > --- a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> > +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> > @@ -5882,21 +5882,176 @@ void cgroup_fork(struct task_struct *child)
> >  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&child->cg_list);
> Just a nitpick, I noticed the comment for cgroup_fork should be updated
> too (generic migration happens in cgroup_post_fork).

Thanks.

> 
> > --- a/kernel/fork.c
> > +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> > [...]
> > @@ -2279,8 +2278,7 @@ static __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process(
> >  	write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> >  
> >  	proc_fork_connector(p);
> > -	cgroup_post_fork(p);
> > -	cgroup_threadgroup_change_end(current);
> > +	cgroup_post_fork(current, p, args);
> I can see that when CLONE_INTO_CGROUP | CLONE_NEWCGROUP is passed, then
> the child's cgroup NS will be rooted at parent's css set
> (copy_namespaces precedes cgroup_post_fork).
> 
> Wouldn't it make better sense if this flags combination resulted in
> child's NS rooted in its css set?

I need to take a closer look but it sounds like we should move the
copying of the cgroup namespace to a later point; but again I need to
look into this.

Thanks!
Christian