sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Pavel Emelianov [xemul@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > | Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > | > Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul@xxxxxxxxxx): > | >> [snip] > | >> > | >>>> Mmm. I wanted to send one small objection to Cedric's patches with mqns, > | >>>> but the thread was abandoned by the time I decided to do-it-right-now. > | >>>> > | >>>> So I can put it here: forcing the CLONE_NEWNS is not very good, since > | >>>> this makes impossible to push a bind mount inside a new namespace, which > | >>>> may operate in some chroot environment. But this ability is heavily > | >>> Which direction do you want to go? I'm wondering whether mounts > | >>> propagation can address it. > | >> Hardly. AFAIS there's no way to let the chroot-ed tasks see parts of > | >> vfs tree, that left behind them after chroot, unless they are in the > | >> same mntns as you, and you bind mount this parts to their tree. No? > | > > | > Well no, but I suspect I'm just not understanding what you want to do. > | > But if the chroot is under /jail1, and you've done, say, > | > > | > mkdir -p /share/pts > | > mkdir -p /jail1/share > | > mount --bind /share /share > | > mount --make-shared /share > | > mount --bind /share /jail1/share > | > mount --make-slave /jail1/share > | > > | > before the chroot-ed tasks were cloned with CLONE_NEWNS, then when you > | > do > | > > | > mount --bind /dev/pts /share/pts > | > > | > from the parent mntns (not that I know why you'd want to do *that* :) > | > then the chroot'ed tasks will see the original mntns's /dev/pts under > | > /jail1/share. > | > | I haven't yet tried that, but :( this function > | > | static inline int check_mnt(struct vfsmount *mnt) > | { > | return mnt->mnt_ns == current->nsproxy->mnt_ns; > | } > | > | and this code in do_loopback > | > | if (!check_mnt(nd->mnt) || !check_mnt(old_nd.mnt)) > | goto out; > | > | makes me think that trying to bind a mount from another mntns > | ot _to_ another is prohibited... Do I miss something? > | > | >>> Though really, I think you're right - we shouldn't break the kernel > | >>> doing CLONE_NEWMQ or CLONE_NEWPTS without CLONE_NEWNS, so we shouldn't > | >>> force the combination. > | >>> > | >>>> exploited in OpenVZ, so if we can somehow avoid forcing the NEWNS flag > | >>>> that would be very very good :) See my next comment about this issue. > | >>>> > | >>>>> Pavel, not long ago you said you were starting to look at tty and pty > | >>>>> stuff - did you have any different ideas on devpts virtualization, or > | >>>>> are you ok with this minus your comments thus far? > | >>>> I have a similar idea of how to implement this, but I didn't thought > | >>>> about the details. As far as this issue is concerned, I see no reasons > | >>>> why we need a kern_mount-ed devtpsfs instance. If we don't make such, > | >>>> we may safely hold the ptsns from the superblock and be happy. The > | >>>> same seems applicable to the mqns, no? > | >>> But the current->nsproxy->devpts->mnt is used in several functions in > | >>> patch 3. > | >> Indeed. I overlooked this. Then we're in a deep ... problem here. > | >> > | >> Breaking this circle was not that easy with pid namespaces, so > | >> I put the strut in proc_flush_task - when the last task from the > | >> namespace exits the kern-mount-ed vfsmnt is dropped, but we can't > | >> do the same stuff with devpts. > | > > | > But I still don't see what the problem is with my proposal? So long as > | > you agree that if there are no tasks remaining in the devptsns, > | > then any task which has its devpts mounted should see an empty directory > | > (due to sb->s_info being NULL), I think it works. > | > | Well, if we _do_ can handle the races with ns->devpts_mnt switch > | from not NULL to NULL, then I'm fine with this approach. > | > | I just remember, that with pid namespaces this caused a complicated > | locking and performance degradation. This is the problem I couldn't > | remember yesterday. > > Well, iirc, one problem with pid namespaces was that we need to keep > the task and pid_namespace association until the task was waited on > (for instance the wait() call from parent needs the pid_t of the > child which is tied to the pid ns in struct upid). > > For this reason, we don't drop the mnt reference in free_pid_ns() but > hold the reference till proc_flush_task(). > > With devpts, can't we simply drop the reference in free_pts_ns() so > that when the last task using the pts_ns exits, we can unmount and > release the mnt ? I hope we can. The thing I'm worried about is whether we can correctly handle race with this pointer switch from NULL to not-NULL. > IOW, do you suspect that the circular reference leads to leaking vfsmnts ? > Of course! If the namespace holds the vfsmnt, vfsmnt holds the superblock and the superblock holds the namespace we won't drop this chain ever, unless some other object breaks this chain. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers