On 27.04.2017 19:22, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/27, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>
>> On 27.04.2017 19:12, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> On 04/26, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 26.04.2017 18:53, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +static long set_last_pid_vec(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns,
>>>>>> + struct pidns_ioc_req *req)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + char *str, *p;
>>>>>> + int ret = 0;
>>>>>> + pid_t pid;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>>>>>> + if (!pid_ns->child_reaper)
>>>>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>>>>>> + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>>>>>> + if (ret)
>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>
>>>>> why do you need to check ->child_reaper under tasklist_lock? this looks pointless.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact I do not understand how it is possible to hit pid_ns->child_reaper == NULL,
>>>>> there must be at least one task in this namespace, otherwise you can't open a file
>>>>> which has f_op == ns_file_operations, no?
>>>>
>>>> Sure, it's impossible to pick a pid_ns, if there is no the pid_ns's tasks. I added
>>>> it under impression of
>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=dfda351c729733a401981e8738ce497eaffcaa00
>>>> but here it's completely wrong. It will be removed in v2.
>>>
>>> Hmm. But if I read this commit correctly then we really need to check
>>> pid_ns->child_reaper != NULL ?
>>>
>>> Currently we can't pick an "empty" pid_ns. But after the commit above a task
>>> can do sys_unshare(CLONE_NEWPID), another (or the same) task can open its
>>> /proc/$pid/ns/pid_for_children and call ns_ioctl() before the 1st alloc_pid() ?
>>
>> Another task can't open /proc/$pid/ns/pid_for_children before the 1st alloc_pid(),
>> because pid_for_children is available to open only after the 1st alloc_pid().
>> So, it's impossible to call ioctl() on it.
>
> Ah, OK, I didn't notice the ns->child_reaper check in pidns_for_children_get().
>
> But note that it doesn't need tasklist_lock too.
Hm, are there possible strange situations with memory ordering, when we see
ns->child_reaper of already died ns, which was placed in the same memory?
Do we have to use some memory barriers here?
