Message-ID: <50293224.90803@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:58:12 -0700
From: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
CC: netdev@vger.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [flame^Wreview] net: netprio_cgroup: rework update socket logic
References: <20120813015348.GZ23464@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <502896C5.7080303@intel.com> <50289D7F.3070402@intel.com> <20120813121827.GB23464@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20120813121827.GB23464@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 854
Lines: 20

[...]

> HOWEVER, it still doesn't address more fundamental problem - somebody
> creating a socket and passing it to you in SCM_RIGHTS datagram will
> leave you with a socket you can do IO on, still tagged according to who
> had created it.
>
> AFAICS, the whole point of that exercise was to allow third-party changing
> the priorities of traffic on sockets already created by a process we now
> move to a different cgroup.  Consider e.g. this:

Correct that is the point of the exercise.

To fix this specific case we could add a call to sock_update_netprioidx
in scm_recv to set the sk_cgrp_prioidx value.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/