[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090618154216.GB6404@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:42:16 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: serue@...ibm.com, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
roland@...hat.com, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>,
"David C. Hansen" <haveblue@...ibm.com>,
Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] Prevent container-inits from using
CLONE_PARENT
On 06/18, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 06/17, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> >
> > @@ -974,6 +974,14 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(
> > if ((clone_flags & CLONE_SIGHAND) && !(clone_flags & CLONE_VM))
> > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >
> > + /*
> > + * To keep pid namespace semantics simple, prevent container-inits
> > + * from creating siblings.
> > + */
> > + if ((clone_flags & CLONE_PARENT) &&
> > + is_container_init(current) && !is_global_init(current))
>
> Both is_ checks are not right afaics. There are per-thread. This means
> that container-init can do clone(CLONE_THREAD), and then this thread
> does CLONE_PARENT and fools copy_process().
>
> As for !is_global_init(). I never understood what should we do if the
> global init does CLONE_PARENT, this attaches another process to swapper,
> not good.
Hmm. And idle threads run with ->action[SIGHLD] == SIG_DFL, so this is
really wrong. Fortunately, we can trust the global init.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists