[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <588c62d2-7cf3-8424-1fc2-6ed676752982@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 18:15:52 +0200
From: Yordan Karadzhov <y.karadz@...il.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, mingo@...hat.com, hagen@...u.net,
rppt@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vvs@...tuozzo.com,
shakeelb@...gle.com, christian.brauner@...ntu.com,
mkoutny@...e.com, Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux.dev>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] namespacefs: Proof-of-Concept
On 22.11.21 г. 17:47 ч., James Bottomley wrote:
>> Hmm, Isn't that true only if somehow we know that (3) happened before
>> (4).
> This depends. There are only two parented namespaces: pid and user.
> You said you were only interested in pid for now. setns on the process
> only affects pid_for_children because you have to fork to enter the pid
> namespace, so in your scenario X has a new ns/pid_for_children but its
> own ns/pid never changed. It's the ns/pid not the ns/pid_for_children
> which is the parent. This makes me suspect that the specific thing
> you're trying to do: trace the pid parentage, can actually be done with
> the information we have now.
This is very good point indeed. Thank you very much!
Yordan
>
> If you do this with the user_ns, then you have a problem because it's
> not fork on entry. But, as I listed in the examples, there are a load
> of other problems with tracing the user_ns tree.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists