From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753592AbcHZPvc (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Aug 2016 11:51:32 -0400 Received: from mail-qt0-f194.google.com ([209.85.216.194]:35456 "EHLO mail-qt0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750869AbcHZPvZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Aug 2016 11:51:25 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 11:50:26 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= , 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 , "open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" Subject: Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups Message-ID: <20160826155026.GD16906@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <1472121165-29071-1-git-send-email-mic@digikod.net> <1472121165-29071-10-git-send-email-mic@digikod.net> <57BF043D.4000300@digikod.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 07:20:35AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > This is simply the action of changing the owner of cgroup sysfs files to > > allow an unprivileged user to handle them (cf. Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt) > > As far as I can tell, Tejun and systemd both actively discourage doing > this. Maybe I misunderstand. But in any event, the admin giving you Please refer to "2-5. Delegation" of Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt. Delegation on v1 is broken on both core and specific controller behaviors and thus discouraged. On v2, delegation should work just fine. I haven't looked in detail but in general I'm not too excited about layering security mechanism on top of cgroup. Maybe it makes some sense when security domain coincides with resource domains but at any rate please keep me in the loop. Thanks. -- tejun