From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751199AbaKXV3G (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:29:06 -0500 Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:56107 "EHLO out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750729AbaKXV3E (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:29:04 -0500 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Andrew Morton , Aaron Tomlin , Pavel Emelyanov , Serge Hallyn , Sterling Alexander , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20141107201424.GA22209@redhat.com> <20141124200602.GA20575@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:27:47 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20141124200602.GA20575@redhat.com> (Oleg Nesterov's message of "Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:06:02 +0100") Message-ID: <87fvd8gugc.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX18ka+iDA07VBCMsJJRG8URuVJKB1MdE8ko= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 97.121.92.161 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address * 1.5 XMNoVowels Alpha-numberic number with no vowels * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.5000] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa05 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 T_TooManySym_02 5+ unique symbols in subject * 0.5 XM_Body_Dirty_Words Contains a dirty word * 0.0 T_TooManySym_01 4+ unique symbols in subject X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa05 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: *;Oleg Nesterov X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 175 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.05 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 4.4 (2.5%), b_tie_ro: 3.2 (1.8%), parse: 1.14 (0.7%), extract_message_metadata: 4.4 (2.5%), get_uri_detail_list: 1.97 (1.1%), tests_pri_-1000: 2.8 (1.6%), tests_pri_-950: 1.01 (0.6%), tests_pri_-900: 0.84 (0.5%), tests_pri_-400: 16 (9.4%), check_bayes: 15 (8.7%), b_tokenize: 3.8 (2.2%), b_tok_get_all: 6 (3.3%), b_comp_prob: 1.61 (0.9%), b_tok_touch_all: 2.4 (1.4%), b_finish: 0.62 (0.4%), tests_pri_0: 128 (73.3%), tests_pri_500: 3.8 (2.2%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] exit/pid_ns: comments + simple fix X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:00:52 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Oleg Nesterov writes: > Eric, Pavel, could you review 1/2 ? (documentation only). It is based on the > code inspection, I didn't bother to verify that my understanding matches the > reality ;) Oleg you are being subtle, introducing some gratuitous changes and slightly off base which makes this all very hard to review. Eric > On 11/20, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >> >> >> Probably this is not the last series... in particular it seems that we >> have some problems with sys_setns() in this area, but I need to recheck. > > So far only the documentation fix. I'll write another email (hopefully with the > patch), afaics at least setns() doesn't play well with PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPER. > > Contrary to what I thought zap_pid_ns_processes() looks fine, but it seems only > by accident. Unless I am totally confused, wait for "nr_hashed == init_pids" > could be removed after 0a01f2cc390e10633a "pidns: Make the pidns proc mount/ > umount logic obvious". However, now that setns() + fork() can inject a task > into a child namespace, we need this code again for another reason. > > I _think_ we can actually remove it and simplify free_pid() as well, but lets > discuss this later and fix the wrong/confusing documentation first. > > 2/2 looks "obviously correct", but I'll appreciate your review anyway. > > Oleg. > > kernel/pid.c | 7 +++---- > kernel/pid_namespace.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++---- > 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)