Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >>Still I would like to see this fixed and I plan on merging this code. The code is merged into my for-next tree now. > Yes, it needs fixed, but 1) there are pending issues (such as the > extra atomics) Concerns not issues. I documented them but I don't see any serious reason to be concerned. The data structures are sufficiently different from AF_UNIX as well as the usage patterns that I have no reasonable expectation that there will be problems. There is no reasonable alternate implementation for correcting this bug. Because of my concerns I looked at several other possibilities and they all showed incorrect behavior, in different circumstances. The implementations are simple enough there are no deep subtle issues. I have tested the code. If a regression happens the code is carefully split up so things can be bisected easily and reverted if necessary. > and 2) its late in the -rc cycle. Plus this issue has existed for 11 years without > the world ending, so I'm sure we can hold on until at least one more > release. People really are starting to seriously look at accessing a single ipc namespace from multiple pid namespaces. The work arounds I saw posted for the current brokenness were too nasty to live. Better to fix things before there is code that actually starts depending on the current brokenness. I am the namespace maintianer and this is my area of responsibility. The code is ready and I see no reason or benefit in delay. Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
