Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Daniel Lezcano (daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxx):
>
>> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>>
>>> Quoting Daniel Lezcano (daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxx):
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dan Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> DL> I guess it will be esay to implement with a nsproxy level counter.
>>>>> DL> Each time you unshare, the new nsproxy count is incremented.
>>>>> DL> Assuming the init_nsproxy is level 0, when the nsproxy counter is
>>>>> DL> > 1, the process is uncheckpointable.
>>>>>
>>>>> This should also be possible by just making sure that the nsproxy of
>>>>> the root process being checkpointed is the same as any of the
>>>>> children, correct? That way we avoid having to modify the core
>>>>> nsproxy bits and can still reject any nested namespaces.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Right, this is another option. The nsproxy counter will allow to flag
>>>> at runtime a process to be uncheckpointable. The nsproxy comparison
>>>> will detect nested nsproxies at checkpoint time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Or, to stick more to the resource->may_checkpoint way of doing it, you
>>> setbit(&nsproxy->uts_ns->may_checkpoint, 0) when the uts_ns is
>>> created, and anytime a task does clone(CLONE_NEWUTS) or
>>> unshare(CLONE_NEWUTS), you clear the bit on the parent uts_ns.
>>>
>>>
>> Hmm, you will need to add a back pointer for the nsproxy | utsns parent,
>> no ?
>>
>
> Why?
>
Never mind, I talked too fast :) we have both parent and child namespace
in the clone and unshare functions.
>> What I was proposing is a counter directly in the nsproxy. Maybe instead
>> of initializing it to zero, it can be initialized to the max supported
>> nested level ( only one right now) and decrement each time a clone or a
>> unshare is done whatever the namespace.
>>
>> init nsproxy->may_checkpoint = 2
>> First clone | unshare => for the new nsproxy the counter may_checkpoint
>> becomes 1
>>
>
> I don't understand why it gets decremented twice before not being
> checkpointable - or do you mean that by the time the nsproxy is
> useful it will be 1? 2 is basically an init-only unused phase?
>
The counter is initialized on the system to 2, which is (max level + 1),
it is for the init namespaces.
>> Second clone | unshare (forbidden) => may_checkpoint becomes 0
>>
>
> Ok but if I
>
> unshare(CLONE_NEWNS)
>
> I'll get a new nsproxy with an old uts_ns. So we'll need
> some (potentially complicated) logic at nsproxy creation to
> decide whether the namespaces being cloned or not being cloned
> impact the checkpointability of the new nsproxy...
>
> Hmm. I think I prefer making sure that the uts_ns is the
> same for all checkpointed tasks :)
>
Yes, this is an alternative. Maybe, I will say something stupid but IMO
the "maycheckpoint" will depends on what you assume you have for the CR:
1) the container is instantiated in one step, that is
clone(mycloneflags) and that's all, any other clone/unshare is
forbidden. In this case, you can concentrate the code in the nsproxy
structure.
2) the container can be instantiated in several steps, that is
several clone/unshare but with different namespaces. In this case, you
have to take care of all the namespaces and do a "maycheckpoint" for
each of them.
IMHO, both solutions are valid. Of course, we are talking about short
term solution :)
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
