Quoting Cedric Le Goater (clg@xxxxxxxxxx): > >> > >> (3) move mq_ns out of nsproxy. where shall I put it then ? > >> > >> (3.1) task_struct ? > >> (3.2) mnt namespace maybe ? > > > > I think the last one is the way to go. > > > > mnt_namespace points to mq_ns. > > > > At clone(CLONE_NEWMNT), the new mnt namespace receives a copy of the > > parent's mq_ns. > > hmm, hmm, hmm, I still thinking about this. > > > If a task does > > mount -o newinstance -t mqueue none /dev/mqueue > > then its current->nsproxy->mnt_namespace->mqns is switched > > to point to a new instance of the mq_ns. > > > > mnt_ns->mq_ns has pointers to the sb (and hence root dentry) of the > > devpts fs. > > [trying to understand what you have in mind ] > > why not keep the 'struct vfsmount' in the mq_ns, as the code is doing > today ? the vfsmount holds both the root dentry and the superblock. Yeah that's fine :) > > When a task does mq_open(name, flag), then name is in the mqueuefs > > found in current->nsproxy->mnt_namespace->mqns. > > > > But if a task does > > > > clone(CLONE_NEWMNT); > > mount --move /dev/mqueue /oldmqueue > > mount -o newinstance -t mqueue none /dev/mqueue > > > > then that task can find files for the old mqueuefs under > > /oldmqueue, while mq_open() uses /dev/mqueue since that's > > what it finds through its mnt_namespace. > > That I don't like. > > Even though posix mqueue objects can outlive a process, I don't think > a process should be able to peek and poke in a message queue namespace > other than his. this is the basic principle of the namespaces : > isolation. Am I wrong ? Yes you are wrong in this case. In particular consider mounts propagation, which allows you to to examine both a child namespace's mounts namespace, and, through the child's /sys (presumably mounted under /vs1/sys), his network namespace and eventually device namespace. > couldn't we just return EACCES ? (not posix) We could. And if we think there is really no value in viewing a child namespace's mqueuefs then we may as well. I just want to make it clear that the proposed semantics support it as an option. -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers