lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: cgroup: status-quo and userland efforts
On Tue, 3 Mar 2015, Luke Leighton wrote:

>> I wrote about that many times, but here are two of the problems.
>>
>> * There's no way to designate a cgroup to a resource, because cgroup
>> is only defined by the combination of who's looking at it for which
>> controller. That's how you end up with tagging the same resource
>> multiple times for different controllers and even then it's broken
>> as when you move resources from one cgroup to another, you can't
>> tell what to do with other tags.
>>
>> While allowing obscene level of flexibility, multiple hierarchies
>> destroy a very fundamental concept that it *should* provide - that
>> of a resource container. It can't because a "cgroup" is undefined
>> under multiple hierarchies.
>
> ok, there is an alternative to hierarchies, which has precedent
> (and, importantly, a set of userspace management tools as well as
> existing code in the linux kernel), and it's the FLASK model which
> you know as SE/Linux.
>
> whilst the majority of people view management to be "hierarchical"
> (so there is a top dog or God process and everything trickles down
> from that), this is viewed as such an anathema in the security
> industry that someone came up with a formal specification for the
> real-world way in which permissions are managed, and it's called the
> FLASK model.

On this topic it's also worth reading Neil Brown's series of articles on this
over at http://lwn.net/Articles/604609/ and why he concludes that having a
single hierarchy for all resource types.

David Lang


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-03-04 06:41    [W:1.091 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site