[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100621111554.GJ16877@hawkmoon.kerlabs.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:15:54 +0200
From: Louis Rilling <Louis.Rilling@...labs.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] procfs: Do not release pid_ns->proc_mnt too early
On 18/06/10 19:55 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/18, Louis Rilling wrote:
> >
> > On 18/06/10 18:08 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > Not sure I ever understood this code. Certainly I can't say I understand
> > > it now. Still, do we really need this circle? I am almost sure the patch
> > > below is not right (and it wasn't tested at all), but could you take a
> > > look?
> >
> > I won't pretend understanding better than you do. Still I can try to give my 2
> > cents.
> >
> > Overall, I don't feel comfortable at being able to have a living proc_mnt
> > with a dead pid_ns.
>
> Yes, this should be fixed, I already realized this. work->func(ns) is
> called when ns is already fixed.
>
> Otherwise, nobody should use ns->proc_mount when ns is already dead/freed.
I meant the opposite. proc_mnt can be kept mounted somewhere, and accesses to it
will likely try to access (freed) pid_ns from it.
Thanks,
Louis
--
Dr Louis Rilling Kerlabs
Skype: louis.rilling Batiment Germanium
Phone: (+33|0) 6 80 89 08 23 80 avenue des Buttes de Coesmes
http://www.kerlabs.com/ 35700 Rennes
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists