[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141008201328.GC31366@ubuntumail>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 20:13:28 +0000
From: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] setns: return 0 directly if try to reassociate with
current namespace
Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@...ssion.com):
> Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com> writes:
>
> > Quoting Chen Hanxiao (chenhanxiao@...fujitsu.com):
> >> We could use setns to join the current ns,
> >> which did a lot of unnecessary work.
> >> This patch will check this senario and
> >> return 0 directly.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chen Hanxiao <chenhanxiao@...fujitsu.com>
> >
> > Plus it's just asking for trouble.
> >
> > I would ack this, except you need to fclose(file) on the
> > return paths. So just set err = 0 and goto out.
>
> I completely disagree.
>
> Nacked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
>
> This patch adds a new code path to test, and gets that new code path
> wrong. So unless there is a performance advantage for some real world
> case I don't see the point. Is there real software that is rejoining
> the a current namespace.
IMO performance would be a poor reason to do this. I would feel better
with it because the case of "I've unshared everything, now setns to
my own namespace" seems too easy to get to a point where you
put the last ref to your ns before you get the new ns. Yes at least
the mntns_install seems to prevent this, and yes it would be a bug,
but I simply consider this good defensive coding.
> This patch changes the behavior of CLONE_NEWNS (which always does a
> chdir and chroot) when you change into the current namespace.
>
> This patch changes the behavior of CLONE_NEWUSER which current errors
> out.
Yes so currently setns to your own ns behaves differently for different
namespace types. That also seems like a reason to fix this.
> This code adds a big switch statement to code that is otherwise table
> driven. With the result that two pieces of code must be looked at
> and modified whenever we want to tweak the behavior of setns for a
> namespace.
>
> So in general I think this piece of code is a maintenance disaster,
> with no apparent redeem virtues.
I'm not going to push too hard on this, I simply disagree.
-serge
--
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