Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 08/08, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: >> >> When someone wants to deal with some other taks's namespaces >> it has to lock the task and then to get the desired namespace >> if the one exists. This is slow on read-only paths and may be >> impossible in some cases. >> >> E.g. Oleg recently noticed a race between unshare() and the >> (just sent for review) pid namespaces - when the task notifies >> the parent it has to know the parent's namespace, but taking >> the task_lock() is impossible there - the code is under write >> locked tasklist lock. >> >> On the other hand switching the namespace on task (daemonize) >> and releasing the namespace (after the last task exit) is rather >> rare operation and we can sacrifice its speed to solve the >> issues above. > > Still it is a bit sad we slow down process's exit. Perhaps I missed > some other ->nsproxy access, but can't we make a simpler patch? > > --- kernel/fork.c 2007-07-28 16:58:17.000000000 +0400 > +++ /proc/self/fd/0 2007-08-08 20:30:33.325216944 +0400 > @@ -1633,7 +1633,9 @@ asmlinkage long sys_unshare(unsigned lon > > if (new_nsproxy) { > old_nsproxy = current->nsproxy; > + read_lock(&tasklist_lock); > current->nsproxy = new_nsproxy; > + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); > new_nsproxy = old_nsproxy; > } > > > This way ->nsproxy is stable under task_lock() or write_lock(tasklist). > >> +void switch_task_namespaces(struct task_struct *p, struct nsproxy *new) >> +{ >> + struct nsproxy *ns; >> + >> + might_sleep(); >> + >> + ns = p->nsproxy; >> + if (ns == new) >> + return; >> + >> + if (new) >> + get_nsproxy(new); >> + rcu_assign_pointer(p->nsproxy, new); >> + >> + if (ns && atomic_dec_and_test(&ns->count)) { >> + /* >> + * wait for others to get what they want from this >> + * nsproxy. cannot release this nsproxy via the >> + * call_rcu() since put_mnt_ns will want to sleep >> + */ >> + synchronize_rcu(); >> + free_nsproxy(ns); >> + } >> +} > > (I may be wrong, Paul cc'ed) > > This is correct with the current implementation of RCU, but strictly speaking, > we can't use synchronize_rcu() here, because write_lock_irq() doesn't imply > rcu_read_lock() in theory. But we should be able to do: write_lock_irq(); rcu_read_lock(); muck with other tasks nsproxy. rcu_read_unlock(); write_unlock_irq(); Which would make rcu fine. The real locking we have is that only a task is allowed to modify it's own nsproxy pointer. Other processes are not. The practical question is how do we enable other processes to read a particular tasks nsproxy or something pointed to by it? Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers