On 09/07/10  6:05 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Louis Rilling <Louis.Rilling@kerlabs.com> writes:
> 
> > On 08/07/10 21:39 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> 
> >> Currently it is possible to put proc_mnt before we have flushed the
> >> last process that will use the proc_mnt to flush it's proc entries.
> >> 
> >> This race is fixed by not flushing proc entries for dead pid
> >> namespaces, and calling pid_ns_release_proc unconditionally from
> >> zap_pid_ns_processes after the pid namespace has been declared dead.
> >
> > One comment below.
> >
> >> 
> >> To ensure we don't unnecessarily leak any dcache entries with skipped
> >> flushes pid_ns_release_proc flushes the entire proc_mnt when it is
> >> called.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> >> ---
> >>  fs/proc/base.c         |    9 +++++----
> >>  fs/proc/root.c         |    3 +++
> >>  kernel/pid_namespace.c |    1 +
> >>  3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> >> index acb7ef8..e9d84e1 100644
> >> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> >> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> >> @@ -2742,13 +2742,14 @@ void proc_flush_task(struct task_struct *task)
> >>  
> >>  	for (i = 0; i <= pid->level; i++) {
> >>  		upid = &pid->numbers[i];
> >> +
> >> +		/* Don't bother flushing dead pid namespaces */
> >> +		if (test_bit(PIDNS_DEAD, &upid->ns->flags))
> >> +			continue;
> >> +
> >
> > IMHO, nothing prevents zap_pid_ns_processes() from setting PIDNS_DEAD and
> > calling pid_ns_release_proc() right now. zap_pid_ns_processes() does not wait
> > for EXIT_DEAD (self-reaping) children to be released.
> 
> Good point we need something probably a lock to prevent proc_mnt from
> going away here.  We might do a little better if we were starting with
> a specific dentry, those at least have some rcu properties but that isn't
> a big help.
> 
> Hmm.  Perhaps there is a way to completely restructure this flushing
> of dentries.  It is just an optimization after all so we don't get too many
> stale dentries building up.
> 
> It might just be worth it simply kill proc_flush_mnt altogether.  I know
> it is measurable when we don't do the flushing but perhaps there can
> be a work struct that periodically wakes up and smacks stale proc dentries.
> 
> Right now I really don't think proc_flush_task is worth the hassle it
> causes.

Indeed, proc_flush_task() seems to be the only bad guy trying to access
pid_ns->proc_mnt after the death of the init process.

But I don't know enough about the performance impact of removing it.

Louis

> 
> Grumble, Grumble more thinking to do.
> 
> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers

-- 
Dr Louis Rilling			Kerlabs
Skype: louis.rilling			Batiment Germanium
Phone: (+33|0) 6 80 89 08 23		80 avenue des Buttes de Coesmes
http://www.kerlabs.com/			35700 Rennes