[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8737sq4teb.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:57:48 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org, bfields@...ldses.org,
bharrosh@...asas.com,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: call_usermodehelper in containers
Ccing The containers list because a related discussion is happening there
and somehow this thread has never made it there.
Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net> writes:
> On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 18:28 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 11/15, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't understand that one. Having a preforked thread with the
>> > proper
>> > environment that can act like kthreadd in terms of spawning user
>> > mode
>> > helpers works and is simple.
>
> Forgive me replying to such an old thread but ...
>
> After realizing workqueues can't be used to pre-create threads to run
> usermode helpers I've returned to look at this.
If someone can wind up with a good implementation I will be happy.
>> Can't we ask ->child_reaper to create the non-daemonized kernel thread
>> with the "right" ->nsproxy, ->fs, etc?
>
> Eric, do you think this approach would be sufficient too?
>
> Probably wouldn't be quite right for user namespaces but should provide
> what's needed for other cases?
>
> It certainly has the advantage of not having to maintain a plague of
> processes waiting around to execute helpers.
That certainly sounds attractive. Especially for the case of everyone
who wants to set a core pattern in a container.
I am fuzzy on all of the details right now, but what I do remember is
that in the kernel the user mode helper concepts when they attempted to
scrub a processes environment were quite error prone until we managed to
get kthreadd(pid 2) on the scene which always had a clean environment.
If we are going to tie this kind of thing to the pid namespace I
recommend simplying denying it if you are in a user namespace without
an approrpriate pid namespace. AKA simply not allowing thigns to be setup
if current->pid_ns->user_ns != current->user_ns.
That still leaves things a little hand-wavy but I hope that helps
conceptually.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists