Sorry for the late response ...
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Trivial patch, and I'm not sure whether we want this or want to
> do it this way. But it saves me having to do it during my restart.sh
> wrapper shell-script.
This looks useful.
I wonder if it makes sense to generalize that to allow the user
to request any mount (and multiple mounts), e.g.
restart --mount="......" --mount="......." ...
With this switch, 'restart' will create a new mntns and do the
mounts in it.
We can then add shortcuts, like --mount-ptys.
However, I'm concerned about the security implications: ideally
'restart' will be setuid executable, so it must be prudent in
accepting such generic requests as 'mount'.
This last argument is also valid if we stay with this patch,
because it is racy (time of check to time of use).
>
> Signed-off-by: Serge E. Hallyn <serue@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> restart.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/restart.c b/restart.c
> index 063e973..03c1850 100644
> --- a/restart.c
> +++ b/restart.c
> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
> #include <asm/unistd.h>
> #include <sys/syscall.h>
> #include <sys/prctl.h>
> +#include <sys/mount.h>
>
> #include <linux/sched.h>
> #include <linux/checkpoint.h>
> @@ -79,6 +80,7 @@ static char usage_str[] =
> " -l,--logfile=FILE write error and debug data to FILE (default=none)\n"
> " --logfile-fd=FD write error and debug data to file desctiptor FD\n"
> " --inspect inspect image on-the-fly for error records\n"
> +" -t,--pty start in a new devpts namespace to support ptys\n"
> " -v,--verbose verbose output\n"
> " -d,--debug debugging output\n"
> " --warn-COND warn on condition COND, but proceed anyways\n"
> @@ -365,6 +367,7 @@ struct args {
> long warn;
> long fail;
> int keep_lsm;
> + int pty;
> };
>
> #define CKPT_COND_PIDZERO 0x1
> @@ -444,9 +447,10 @@ static void parse_args(struct args *args, int argc, char *argv[])
> { "debug", no_argument, NULL, 'd' },
> { "warn-pidzero", no_argument, NULL, 9 },
> { "fail-pidzero", no_argument, NULL, 10 },
> + { "pty", no_argument, NULL, 't'},
> { NULL, 0, NULL, 0 }
> };
> - static char optc[] = "hdvkpPwWF:r:i:l:";
> + static char optc[] = "hdvkpPwWF:r:i:l:t";
>
> int optind;
> int sig;
> @@ -456,6 +460,7 @@ static void parse_args(struct args *args, int argc, char *argv[])
> args->wait = 1;
> args->infd = -1;
> args->logfd = -1;
> + args->pty = 0;
>
> while (1) {
> int c = getopt_long(argc, argv, optc, opts, &optind);
> @@ -469,6 +474,9 @@ static void parse_args(struct args *args, int argc, char *argv[])
> case 'v':
> global_verbose = 1;
> break;
> + case 't':
> + args->pty = 1;
> + break;
> case 5: /* --inspect */
> args->inspect = 1;
> break;
> @@ -786,6 +794,31 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> exit(1);
> }
>
> + /* private devpts namespace? */
> + if (args.pty) {
> + struct stat ptystat;
> + /* make sure /dev/ptmx is a link else we'll just break */
> + ret = lstat("/dev/ptmx", &ptystat);
> + if (ret) {
> + perror("stat /dev/ptmx");
> + exit(1);
> + }
> + if ((ptystat.st_mode & S_IFMT) != S_IFLNK) {
> + printf("Error: /dev/ptmx must be a link to /dev/pts/ptmx\n");
> + exit(1);
> + }
Do we really need these two tests ? Wouldn't the mount below
fail anyway in these cases ?
> + ret = unshare(CLONE_NEWNS);
> + if (ret) {
> + perror("unshare mounts ns (for -pty)");
> + exit(1);
> + }
> + ret = mount("pts", "/dev/pts", "devpts", 0, "newinstance");
> + if (ret) {
> + perror("mount -t devpts -o newinstance");
> + exit(1);
> + }
> + }
> +
> /* self-restart ends here: */
> if (args.self) {
> restart(getpid(), STDIN_FILENO, RESTART_TASKSELF, args.logfd);
Thanks,
Oren.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
