[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:55:12 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>,
Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 04:44:13PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> I tested with cgroup-v2 but indeed, it seems a bit different with
> cgroup-v1 :)
> Does anyone know how to handle both cases?
If you wanna do cgroup membership test, just do cgroup v2 membership
test. No need to introduce a new controller and possibly struct sock
association field for that. That's what all new cgroup aware network
operations are using anyway and doesn't conflicts with whether other
controllers are v1 or v2.
For examples of using cgroup v2 membership test, please take a look at
cgroup_mt_v1().
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
