From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: Implement SO_PASSCGROUP to enable passing cgroup path Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:21:49 -0400 Message-ID: <20140416162149.GI1257@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20140416002010.GA5035@redhat.com> <20140416.085743.1614257692560892039.davem@davemloft.net> <1397664837.19767.410.camel@willson.li.ssimo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andy Lutomirski , David Miller , Vivek Goyal , Daniel Walsh , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , lpoetter@redhat.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, kay@redhat.com, Network Development To: Simo Sorce Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1397664837.19767.410.camel@willson.li.ssimo.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hello, On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:13:57PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > The only one that *may* be reasonable is the "secret" cgroup name one, > however nobody seem to come up with a reason why it is legitimate to > allow to keep cgroup names secret. Ugh, please don't play security games with cgroup names. It is one of the identifying properties of a task, like a pid, and will be used in other parts of the kernel to match groups of tasks. If we play security peekaboo with cgroup names, it has to be transitive and puts burdens on all its future uses. Unless there are *REALLY* strong rationales, which can also justify hiding pids, this isn't happening. Thanks. -- tejun