On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 04:20:52PM +0000, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Aristeu Rozanski ([email protected]): > > +static int propagate_exception(struct dev_cgroup *devcg_root) > > +{ > > + struct cgroup *root = devcg_root->css.cgroup; > > + struct dev_cgroup *devcg, *parent, *tmp; > > + int rc = 0; > > + LIST_HEAD(pending); > > + > > + get_online_devcg(root, &pending); > > + > > + list_for_each_entry_safe(devcg, tmp, &pending, propagate_pending) { > > + parent = cgroup_to_devcgroup(devcg->css.cgroup->parent); > > + > > + dev_exception_clean(&devcg->exceptions); > > + if (devcg->behavior == parent->behavior) { > > + rc = dev_exceptions_copy(&devcg->exceptions, > > &parent->exceptions); > > Let's say parent A and child B both have DEFAULT_DENY, with a set of let's > say 5 whitelist exceptions. Now the parent adds two more whitelist > exceptions. As you say, we don't propagate those. > > Now the parent removes one of it's whitelist exceptions. > devcgroup_update_access() calls dev_exception_rm() followed by > propagate_exception(), which comes here and copies the parent's > whitelist - including the two new whitelist rules - to the > child.
ugh, I see your point. This gonna be trickier to fix. -- Aristeu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
