From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751269AbaKYWGw (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:06:52 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56177 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750869AbaKYWGv (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:06:51 -0500
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 23:06:37 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Ian Kent <ikent@redhat.com>
Cc: Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@parallels.com>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@redhat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] kmod - add call_usermodehelper_ns() helper
Message-ID: <20141125220637.GA10008@redhat.com>
References: <20141125005255.4974.54193.stgit@pluto.fritz.box> <20141125010734.4974.85347.stgit@pluto.fritz.box> <20141125215248.GA7958@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20141125215248.GA7958@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 11/25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Let me first apologize, I didn't actually read this series yet.
>
> But I have to admit that so far I do not like this approach...
> probably I am biased.

Yes.

And I have another concern... this is mostly a feeling, I can be
easily wrong but:

> On 11/25, Ian Kent wrote:
> >
> > +static int umh_set_ns(struct subprocess_info *info, struct cred *new)
> > +{
> > +	struct nsproxy *ns = info->data;
> > +
> > +	mntns_setfs(ns->mnt_ns);
>
> Firstly, it is not clear to me if we should use the caller's ->mnt_ns.
> Let me remind about the coredump. The dumping task can cloned with
> CLONE_NEWNS or it cam do unshare(NEWNS)... but OK, I do not understand
> this enough.

And otoh. If we actually want to use the caller's mnt_ns/namespaces we
could simply fork/reparent a child which will do execve ?

Oleg.