[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121219181400.GA22991@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:14:00 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>,
Gao feng <gaofeng@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] pidns: Support unsharing the pid namespace.
Hi Eric,
oleg@...sign.ru no longer works, so I just noticed these emails.
On 11/16, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Unsharing of the pid namespace unlike unsharing of other namespaces
> does not take affect immediately. Instead it affects the children
> created with fork and clone.
I'll try to read this series later, but I am not sure I will ever
understand the code with these patches ;)
So alloc_pid() becomes the only user nsproxy->pid_ns and it is not
necessarily equal to task_active_pid_ns(). It seems to me that this
adds a lot of new corner cases.
Unless I missed something, at least we should not allow CLONE_THREAD
if active_pid_ns != nsproxy->pid_ns. If nothing else, copy_process()
initializes ->child_reaper only if thread_group_leader(child). And
->child_reaper == NULL can obviously lead to crash.
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