From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Reply-To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com Sender: Tejun Heo Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:55:12 -0400 From: Tejun Heo Message-ID: <20160826125512.GC16906@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=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <57BF043D.4000300@digikod.net> Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= 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 , cgroups@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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