(switched to email. Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the bugzilla web interface). On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:16:55 -0800 (PST) bugme-daemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12199 > > Summary: /proc/1/exe entry of PID namespace init process links to > wrong executable > Product: Process Management > Version: 2.5 > KernelVersion: 2.6.27.8 > Platform: All > OS/Version: Linux > Tree: Mainline > Status: NEW > Severity: low > Priority: P1 > Component: Other > AssignedTo: process_other@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > ReportedBy: robert.rex@xxxxxxxxxx > > > Latest working kernel version: > > None known. > > Earliest failing kernel version: > > 2.6.25.4, 2.6.27.4 and 2.6.27.8 show this behaviour, but I assume that it > exists since 2.6.24 with the introduction of PID namespaces. > > Distribution: CentOS 5.1 > > Hardware Environment: x86-64 > > Software Environment: (see attached test program) > > Problem Description: > > The /proc/1/exe entry of a new PID namespace does not link to the expected > binary if it was started within a chroot. All other processes in this namespace > link to the expected path. > > Steps to reproduce: (see attached test program) > > 1) chroot() into an appropriate directory. > 2) Create a process, which clone()s a thread in a new PID namespace with > CLONE_NEWPID. > 3) Mount /proc from within this new namespace. > 3) Read the /proc/1/exe link from within this new namespace. It points to the > "real" binary, not the (expected) link that is valid in this chroot. > > The attached program executes steps 2, 3 and 4 and does a "/bin/ls -la /proc/1 > /proc/2" in the new namespace. The output below was collected with the > following commands: > > 1) mkdir /tmp/target > 2) mount /dev/sda1 /tmp/target (/dev/sda1 is also mounted on /) > 3) chroot /tmp/target > 4) ./pid_namespace_chroot > > --------------- > /proc/1: > [...] > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Dec 11 16:18 exe -> > /tmp/target/root/pid_namespace_chroot > [...] > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Dec 11 16:18 root -> / > [...] > > /proc/2: > [...] > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Dec 11 16:18 exe -> /bin/ls > [...] > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Dec 11 16:18 root -> / > [...] > --------------- > > Hopefully, I do not miss a point, but I assume that this is not intended?! > Thanks. There's a test program attached to the bugzilla report. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers