On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Aditya Kali <adityak...@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Aditya Kali <adityak...@google.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Aditya Kali <adityak...@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> if (opts->flags & CGRP_ROOT_SANE_BEHAVIOR) {
>>>>> pr_warn("sane_behavior: this is still under development
>>>>> and its behaviors will change, proceed at your own risk\n");
>>>>> - if (nr_opts != 1) {
>>>>> + if (nr_opts > 1) {
>>>>> pr_err("sane_behavior: no other mount options
>>>>> allowed\n");
>>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>>
>>>> This looks wrong. But, if you make the change above, then it'll be right.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It would have been nice if simple 'mount -t cgroup cgroup <mnt>' from
>>> cgroupns does the right thing automatically.
>>>
>>
>> This is a debatable point, but it's not what I meant. Won't your code
>> let 'mount -t cgroup -o one_evil_flag cgroup mountpoint' through?
>>
>
> I don't think so. This check "if (nr_opts > 1)" is nested under "if
> (opts->flags & CGRP_ROOT_SANE_BEHAVIOR)". So we know that there is
> atleast 1 option ('__DEVEL__sane_behavior') present (implicit or not).
> Addition of 'one_evil_flag' will make nr_opts = 2 and result in EINVAL
> here.
But the implicit __DEVEL__sane_behavior doesn't increment nr_opts, right?
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
