[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50AC3BA7.3090100@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:25:43 +0800
From: Gao feng <gaofeng@...fujitsu.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/11] pidns: Deny strange cases when creating pid namespaces.
on 2012/11/17 00:35, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
>
> task_active_pid_ns(current) != current->ns_proxy->pid_ns will
> soon be allowed to support unshare and setns.
>
> The definition of creating a child pid namespace when
> task_active_pid_ns(current) != current->ns_proxy->pid_ns could be that
> we create a child pid namespace of current->ns_proxy->pid_ns. However
> that leads to strange cases like trying to have a single process be
> init in multiple pid namespaces, which is racy and hard to think
> about.
>
> The definition of creating a child pid namespace when
> task_active_pid_ns(current) != current->ns_proxy->pid_ns could be that
> we create a child pid namespace of task_active_pid_ns(current). While
> that seems less racy it does not provide any utility.
>
> Therefore define the semantics of creating a child pid namespace when
> task_active_pid_ns(current) != current->ns_proxy->pid_ns to be that the
> pid namespace creation fails. That is easy to implement and easy
> to think about.
>
> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
> ---
Acked-by: Gao feng <gaofeng@...fujitsu.com>
--
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