On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 12:30:36AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > cgroup is the common way to group multiple tasks. > > Without cgroup only parent<->child relationship will be possible, > > which will limit usability of such lsm to a master task that controls > > its children. Such api restriction would have been ok, if we could > > extend it in the future, but unfortunately task-centric won't allow it > > without creating a parallel lsm that is cgroup based. > > Therefore I think we have to go with cgroup-centric api and your > > application has to use cgroups from the start though only parent-child > > would have been enough. > > Also I don't think the kernel can afford two bpf based lsm. One task > > based and another cgroup based, so we have to find common ground > > that suits both use cases. > > Having unprivliged access is a subset. There is no strong reason why > > cgroup+lsm+bpf should be limited to root only always. > > When we can guarantee no pointer leaks, we can allow unpriv. > > I don't really understand what you mean. In the context of landlock, > which is a *sandbox*, can one of you explain a use case that > materially benefits from this type of cgroup usage? I haven't thought > of one. In case of seccomp-like sandbox where parent controls child processes cgroup is not needed. It's needed when container management software needs to control a set of applications. If we can have one bpf-based lsm that works via cgroup and without, I'd be fine with it. Right now I haven't seen a plausible proposal to do that. Therefore cgroup based api is a common api that works for sandbox as well, though requiring parent to create a cgroup just to control a single child is cumbersome. -- 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
