Serge E. Hallyn [serue@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: | Quoting sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx (sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx): | > | > From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx> | > Subject: [PATCH 6/7]: Check for user-space mount of /dev/pts | > | > When the pts namespace is cloned, the /dev/pts is not useful unless it | > is remounted from the user space. | > | > If user-space clones pts namespace but does not remount /dev/pts, it | > would end up using the /dev/pts mount from parent-pts-ns but allocate | > the pts indices from current pts ns. | | So why not use the allocated_ptys from the parent ptsns? It's what | userspace asked for and it's safe to do. The problem is when opening /dev/ptmx, we use current_pts_ns() and when opening slave-pty, we use pts_ns from the inode. If child-pts-ns opens /dev/ptmx, we use 'allocated-ptys' from child-pts-ns and we allocate index 0. But when the process opens the slave pty "/dev/pts/0", we would get the pts_ns from the inode which would come from parent-pts-ns (and could refer to an existing pty). Agree with Alexey and Pavel, its bad. Will think some more, but appreciate any ideas. Sukadev _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
