linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][v4][PATCH 7/7]: Define clone_with

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090810145425.GA1378@ucw.cz>
Date:	Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:54:25 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, serue@...ibm.com,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	mikew@...gle.com, mingo@...e.hu, hpa@...or.com,
	Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	sukadev@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][v4][PATCH 7/7]: Define clone_with_pids syscall

Hi!

> 
> Subject: [RFC][v4][PATCH 7/7]: Define clone_with_pids syscall
> 
> Container restart requires that a task have the same pid it had when it was
> checkpointed. When containers are nested the tasks within the containers
> exist in multiple pid namespaces and hence have multiple pids to specify
> during restart.
> 
> clone_with_pids(), intended for use during restart, is the same as clone(),
> except that it takes a 'target_pid_set' paramter. This parameter lets caller
> choose specific pid numbers for the child process, in the process's active
> and ancestor pid namespaces. (Descendant pid namespaces in general don't
> matter since processes don't have pids in them anyway, but see comments
> in copy_target_pids() regarding CLONE_NEWPID).

This should go to documentation/manpage somewhere.


> Unlike clone(), clone_with_pids() needs CAP_SYS_ADMIN, at least for now, to
> prevent unprivileged processes from misusing this interface.
> 
> Call clone_with_pids as follows:
> 
> 	pid_t pids[] = { 0, 77, 99 };
> 	struct pid_set pid_set;
> 
> 	pid_set.num_pids = sizeof(pids) / sizeof(int);
> 	pid_set.pids = &pids;
> 
> 	syscall(__NR_clone_with_pids, flags, stack, NULL, NULL, NULL, &pid_set);
> 
> If a target-pid is 0, the kernel continues to assign a pid for the process in
> that namespace. In the above example, pids[0] is 0, meaning the kernel will
> assign next available pid to the process in init_pid_ns. But kernel will assign
> pid 77 in the child pid namespace 1 and pid 99 in pid namespace 2. If either
> 77 or 99 are taken, the system call fails with -EBUSY.
> 
> If 'pid_set.num_pids' exceeds the current nesting level of pid namespaces,
> the system call fails with -EINVAL.

Does it make sense to set the pid in anything but innermost container?


-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/