From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751269AbaKCXsf (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 3 Nov 2014 18:48:35 -0500
Received: from mail-la0-f41.google.com ([209.85.215.41]:39487 "EHLO
	mail-la0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750974AbaKCXsc (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 3 Nov 2014 18:48:32 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGr1F2GX45gC-V7kEzVjp-EiYfdPDVBRs+99nASpgFVAdYX+1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1414783141-6947-1-git-send-email-adityakali@google.com>
 <1414783141-6947-8-git-send-email-adityakali@google.com> <CALCETrXTaZ3SJ_t-gnbc93BVZXg-912NqO78kFd0Tpi-5-dZoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGr1F2FuPQxLraYv7PstJ9c8H-XQsgawaAtj4AS77B+_0k2o+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCETrW64-6xC6psP-8k0H-1GfVnWBTeEBNSrE_sH+-DFtuZQQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGr1F2GX45gC-V7kEzVjp-EiYfdPDVBRs+99nASpgFVAdYX+1w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 15:48:10 -0800
Message-ID: <CALCETrUB_xx5zno26k5UjAFt77nZTpgyndD4AuBSZxiZBNjXSw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 7/7] cgroup: mount cgroupns-root when inside non-init cgroupns
To: Aditya Kali <adityakali@google.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        Rohit Jnagal <jnagal@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Aditya Kali <adityakali@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Aditya Kali <adityakali@google.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Aditya Kali <adityakali@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>         if (opts->flags & CGRP_ROOT_SANE_BEHAVIOR) {
>>>>>                 pr_warn("sane_behavior: this is still under development and its behaviors will change, proceed at your own risk\n");
>>>>> -               if (nr_opts != 1) {
>>>>> +               if (nr_opts > 1) {
>>>>>                         pr_err("sane_behavior: no other mount options allowed\n");
>>>>>                         return -EINVAL;
>>>>
>>>> This looks wrong.  But, if you make the change above, then it'll be right.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It would have been nice if simple 'mount -t cgroup cgroup <mnt>' from
>>> cgroupns does the right thing automatically.
>>>
>>
>> This is a debatable point, but it's not what I meant.  Won't your code
>> let 'mount -t cgroup -o one_evil_flag cgroup mountpoint' through?
>>
>
> I don't think so. This check "if (nr_opts > 1)" is nested under "if
> (opts->flags & CGRP_ROOT_SANE_BEHAVIOR)". So we know that there is
> atleast 1 option ('__DEVEL__sane_behavior') present (implicit or not).
> Addition of 'one_evil_flag' will make nr_opts = 2 and result in EINVAL
> here.

But the implicit __DEVEL__sane_behavior doesn't increment nr_opts, right?

--Andy