Re: [Devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH] IP address restricting cgroup subsystem

[Paul Menage <menage@google.com>]

>
> I think the only way to make hierarchy_mutex works for this issue is:
>
> @@ -2403,16 +2403,18 @@ static long cgroup_create(struct cgroup *parent, struct
>        if (notify_on_release(parent))
>                set_bit(CGRP_NOTIFY_ON_RELEASE, &cgrp->flags);
>
> +       cgroup_lock_hierarchy(root);
> +
>        for_each_subsys(root, ss) {
>                struct cgroup_subsys_state *css = ss->create(ss, cgrp);
>                if (IS_ERR(css)) {
> +                       cgroup_unlock_hierarchy(root);
>                        err = PTR_ERR(css);
>                        goto err_destroy;
>                }
>                init_cgroup_css(css, ss, cgrp);
>        }
>
> -       cgroup_lock_hierarchy(root);
>        list_add(&cgrp->sibling, &cgrp->parent->children);
>        cgroup_unlock_hierarchy(root);
>        root->number_of_cgroups++;
>

That would be possible, but I'm not sure that extending
hierarchy_mutex across all the create calls is a good idea - it's
meant to be very lightweight.

OK, an alternative way to avoid cgroup_lock() is for the
spinlock-protected state in ipcgroup to be the address and the count
of active children.

create() does:

lock parent
css->addr = parent->addr
parent->child_count++;
unlock parent

and write does:

lock css
if (!css->child_count) {
  css->addr = new_addr
} else {
  report error;
}
unlock css

Paul