Date:	Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:46:06 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
	Oren Laadan <orenl@...rato.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...e.fr>,
	randy.dunlap@...cle.com, arnd@...db.de, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...tin.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Louis.Rilling@...labs.com,
	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, roland@...hat.com,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][v8][PATCH 0/10] Implement clone3() system call

Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> Eric W. Biederman [ebiederm@...ssion.com] wrote:
> | > clone3() seemed to be the leading contender from what I've read so far.
> | > Does anyone still object to clone3() after reading the whole thread?
> | 
> | I object to what clone3() is.  The name is not particularly interesting.
> | 
> | The sanity checks for assigning pids are missing and there is a todo
> | about it.  I am not comfortable with assigning pids to a new process
> | in a pid namespace with other processes user space processes executing
> | in it.
>
> Could you clarify ? How is the call to alloc_pidmap() from clone3() different
> from the call from clone() itself ?

I think it is totally inappropriate to assign pids in a pid namespace
where there are user space processes already running.

> | How we handle a clone extension depends critically on if we want to
> | create a processes for restart in user space or kernel space.
> | 
> | Could some one give me or point me at a strong case for creating the
> | processes for restart in user space?
>
> There has been a lot of discussion on this with reference to the
> Checkpoint/Restart patchset. See http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/13/401
> for instance.

Just read it.  Thank you.  Now I am certain clone_with_pids() is
not useful functionality to be exporting to userspace.

The only real argument in favor of doing this in user space is greater
flexibility.  I can see checkpointing/restoring a single thread process
without a pid namespace.  Anything more and you are just asking for
trouble.

A design that weakens security.  Increases maintenance costs.  All for
an unreliable result seems like a bad one to me.

> | The pid assignment code is currently ugly.  I asked that we just pass
> | in the min max pid pids that already exist into the core pid
> | assignment function and a constrained min/max that only admits a
> | single pid when we are allocating a struct pid for restart.  That was
> | not done and now we have a weird abortion with unnecessary special cases.
>
> I did post a version of the patch attemptint to implement that. As
> pointed out in:
>
> 	http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/17/445
>
> we would need more checks in alloc_pidmap() to cover cases like min or max
> being invalid or min being greater than max or max being greater than pid_max
> etc. Those checks also made the code ugly (imo).

If you need more checks you are doing it wrong.  The code already has min
and max values, and even a start value.  I was just strongly suggesting
we generalize where we get the values from, and then we have not special
cases. 

Eric

--
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