Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:55:12 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <>
To: Mickaël Salaün <>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <>,
	LKML <>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <>, Arnd Bergmann <>,
	Casey Schaufler <>,
	Daniel Borkmann <>,
	Daniel Mack <>,
	David Drysdale <>,
	"David S . Miller" <>,
	Elena Reshetova <>,
	James Morris <>,
	Kees Cook <>, Paul Moore <>,
	Sargun Dhillon <>,
	"Serge E . Hallyn" <>,
	Will Drewry <>,
	Kernel Hardening <>,
	Linux API <>,
	LSM List <>,
	Network Development <>,
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups


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



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.