Re: [RFC][PATCH] ns: Syscalls for better namespace sharing control.

[Pavel Emelyanov <xemul-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>]

> 2 parallel enters?  I meant you have pid 0 in the entered pid namespace.
> You have pid 0 because your pid simply does not map.

Oh, I see.

> There is nothing that makes to parallel enters impossible in that.
> Even today we have one thread per cpu that has task->pid == &init_struct_pid
> which is pid 0.

How about the forked processes then? Who will be their parent?

> For the case of unshare where we are designed to be used with PAM I don't
> think my proposed semantics work.  For a join needed an extra fork before
> you are really in the pid namespace should be minor.

Hm... One more proposal - can we adopt the planned new fork_with_pids system
call to fork the process right into a new pid namespace?

> That doesn't handle the case of cached struct pids.  A good example is
> waitpid, where it waits for a specific struct pid.  Which means that
> allocating a new struct pid and changing task->pid will cause
> waitpid(pid) to wait forever...

OK. Good example. Thanks.

> To change struct pid would require the refcount on struct pid to show
> no references from anywhere except the task_struct.

I think this is OK to return -EBUSY for this. And fix the waitpid
respectively not to block this common case. All the others I think
can be stayed as is.

> At the cost of a little memory we can solve that problem for unshare
> if we have a an extra upid in struct pid, how we verify there is space
> in struct pid I'm not certain.
> 
> I do think that at least until someone calls exec the namespace pids are
> reported to the process itself should not change.  That is kill and

Wait a second - in that case the wait will be blocked too! No?

> waitpid etc.  Which suggests an implementation the opposite of what
> I proposed.  With ns_of_pid(task_pid(current)) being used as the
> pid namespace of children, and current->nsproxy->pid_ns not changing
> in the case of unshare.
> 
> Shrug.
> 
> Or perhaps this is a case where we use we can implement join with
> an extra process but we can't implement unshare, because the effect
> cannot be immediate.

Well, I'm talking only about the join now.

> Eric
>