On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:41:37AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I understand that currently cgroup_iter is the only user of this, but > for future use cases, is it safe to assume that cgrp will always be > inside ns? Would it be safer to do something like: I preferred the simpler root_cgrp comparison to avoid pointer arithmetics in cgroup_is_descendant. But I also made the assumption of cgrp in ns. Thanks, I'll likely adjust cgroup_path_ns to make it more robust for an external cgrp. I'd like to clarify, if a process A in a broad cgroup ns sets up a BPF cgroup iterator, exposes it via bpffs and than a process B in a narrowed cgroup ns (which excludes the origin cgroup) wants to traverse the iterator, should it fail straight ahead (regardless of iter order)? The alternative would be to allow self-dereference but prohibit any iterator moves (regardless of order). Thanks, Michal
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
