Hello, Aleksa. On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 11:52:22AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote: > However, I agree with James that this patchset isn't ideal (it was my first > rough attempt). I think I'll get to work on properly virtualising > /sys/fs/cgroup, which will allow for a new cgroup namespace to modify > subtrees (but without allowing for cgroup escape) -- by pinning what pid > namespace the cgroup was created under. We can use the same type of > virtualization that /proc does (except instead of selectively showing the > dentries, we selectively show different owners of the dentries). > > Would that be acceptable? I'm still not sold on the idea. For better or worse, the permission model is mostly based on vfs and I don't want to deviate too much as that's likely to become confusing pretty quickly. If a sub-hierarchy is to be delegated, that's upto whomever is controlling cgroup hierarchy in the sub-domain. We can expand the perm checks to consider user namespaces but I'd like to avoid going beyond that. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
