Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 26 Aug 2022 19:15:29 +0200
From:   Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
To:     Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v9 1/5] bpf: Introduce cgroup iter
Message-ID: <20220826171529.GB30475@blackbody.suse.cz>
References: <20220824030031.1013441-1-haoluo@google.com>
 <20220824030031.1013441-2-haoluo@google.com>
 <20220825152455.GA29058@blackbody.suse.cz>
 <CA+khW7hKk8yMvsQCQjnEoR3=G9=77F2TgAEDa+uSVedoOE=NsA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uZ3hkaAS1mZxFaxD"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+khW7hKk8yMvsQCQjnEoR3=G9=77F2TgAEDa+uSVedoOE=NsA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk


--uZ3hkaAS1mZxFaxD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:58:26AM -0700, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com> wrote:
> Permission is a valid point about FD. There was discussion in an
> earlier version of this patch series [0].

(I'm sorry, I didn't follow all the version discussions closely.)

I think the permissions are a non-issue when unprivileged BPF is
disabled. If it's allowed, I think it'd be better solved generally
within the BPF iterator framework. (Maybe it's already present, I didn't
check.)

(OT:
> The good thing about ID is that it can be passed across processes=20

FDs can be passed too (parent-child trivially, others via SCM_RIGHTS
message).

> and it's meaningful to appear in logs. It's more user-friendly.

I'd say cgroup path wins both in meaning and user friendliness.
(Or maybe you meant different class of users.)
)

> So we decided to support both.

I accept cgroup ids are an establish{ing,ed} way to refer to cgroups
=66rom userspace. Hence my fixups for the BPF cgroup iter (another thread)
for better namespacing consisntency.

Thanks,
Michal

--uZ3hkaAS1mZxFaxD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEARYIAB0WIQTrXXag4J0QvXXBmkMkDQmsBEOquQUCYwj/rgAKCRAkDQmsBEOq
uRDtAP95KSUf5eIbnMtX+q0mP/oOLO5HxrPBR3LcuKDvtCX16gEA1qMMMrMNNSRI
PnRFq9cTUofRflCF69bLsiCRXGQYSQk=
=zlex
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--uZ3hkaAS1mZxFaxD--