[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <519DCF36.80708@parallels.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 12:11:34 +0400
From: Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
<jlayton@...hat.com>, <lucas.demarchi@...fusion.mobi>,
<rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<oleg@...hat.com>, <bfields@...ldses.org>, <bharrosh@...asas.com>,
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<devel@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: call_usermodehelper_root helper introduced
22.05.2013 22:35, Eric W. Biederman пишет:
> ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
>
>> I am missing a lot of context here and capturing the context of a
>> process at time time we mount the filesystem and reconstituing it in
>> call user mode helper seems like something we could do.
>
> If we want to do something like this the only sane thing I can see is to
> have a per container version of kthread call it uthread. That the user
> mode helper code would use to launch a new process.
>
The main point here, is that a container can have it's own root, different
to kthread's one (another mount or at least chroot result).
> Anything else and I expect we will be tearing our hair out for the rest
> of our lives with weird corner cases or unexpected semantics.
>
> At first glace I would exepct uthread to be per pid namespace in
> implementation.
>
Having a per-pidnamespace kernel thread would be really great.
But regrettably doesn't solve the root swapping problem.
> Eric
>
>
--
Best regards,
Stanislav Kinsbursky
--
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