On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 15:33 +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:28:43AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 15:58 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > > "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > > >> > void autofs4_dentry_release(struct dentry *);
> > > > >> > extern void autofs4_kill_sb(struct super_block *);
> > > > >> > diff --git a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > > >> > index 9857543..4a9ad9b 100644
> > > > >> > --- a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > > >> > +++ b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
> > > > >> > @@ -141,8 +141,8 @@ static void autofs4_notify_daemon(struct
> > > > >> > packet->ino = wq->ino;
> > > > >> > packet->uid = wq->uid;
> > > > >> > packet->gid = wq->gid;
> > > > >> > - packet->pid = wq->pid;
> > > > >> > - packet->tgid = wq->tgid;
> > > > >> > + packet->pid = pid_nr(wq->pid);
> > > > >> > + packet->tgid = pid_nr(wq->tgid);
> > > > >> > break;
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm assuming we build the packet in the process context of the
> > > > >> daemon we are sending it to. If not we have a problem here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes this is data being sent to a userspace daemon (Ian pls
> > > > > correct me if I'm wrong) so the pid_nr is the only thing we can
> > > > > send.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. The question is are we in the user space daemon's process
> > > > when we generate the pid_nr. Or do we stuff this in some kind of
> > > > socket, and the socket switch locations of the packet.
> > > >
> > > > Basically I'm just trying to be certain we are calling pid_nr in the
> > > > proper context. Otherwise we could get the wrong pid when we have
> > > > multiple pid namespaces in play.
> > >
> > > We need to know what the userspace daemon being written to is doing
> > > with autofs_ptype_{missing,expire}_{in,}direct() messages.
> >
> > At the moment autofs only uses the packet->pid for logging purposes.
> > This solves an age old problem of not knowing who is causing mount
> > requests.
>
> probably I'm wrong, but that sounds like the packet->pid
> is supposed to be the pid of the process _causing_ the mount,
> not the user space daemon communicating with the kernel ...
That's right. The only place it's used atm is to log the pid of
processes that are triggering mounts.
>
> > I'm not aware of any other applications that use version 5 yet but
> > that of course could change. So we can't really know what will be done
> > with these ids at some point in the future.
> >
> > > If I understand correctly, the pid being sent is of a process which
> > > tried to automount some directory. The message is being sent to the
> > > autofs daemon, which should be running in the root pid namespace.
> >
> > Yes, but it could be the autofs daemon itself in the expire case.
> >
> > Usually it doesn't make sense to run an automounting application as
> > other than "root" but I'm not familiar with other possible userspace
> > applications. Perhaps User Mode Linux could be an issue?
> >
> > >
> > > So as it is, the pid_nr(wq->pid) should be done under the init
> > > pid_namespace, since it's a kthread. So as long as the userspace
> > > automount daemon is started in the root pid namespace, the pid it
> > > gets will be the right one.
> > >
> > > Ian, does what I'm saying make sense, or am I wrong about how things
> > > work for autofs?
> >
> > Yep. That's the way it is.
>
> assumed we allow auto mounter mounts inside a context
> (I see no immediate reason not to do that) we want to
> know the name/pid space the userspace daemon is running
> in as well as the name/pid space of the trigger task
>
> > > thanks,
> > > -serge
> > >
> > > PS
> > > Note that if I'm right, but some machine starts autofs in a child
> > > pid_namespace, the pid_nr() the way I have it is wrong. I'm not sure in
> > > that case how we go about fixing that. Somehow we need to store the
> > > autofs userspace daemon's pid namespace pointer to help us find the
> > > proper pid_nr.
> >
> > In order for any user space application to use the module it must mount
> > the autofs file system, passing a file handle for the pipe to use for
> > communication. This must always be done. Can we grab the process pid
> > namespace at that time and store it in the superblock info structure?
>
> probably yes, but if my assumption above is correct, that
> isn't necessarily the pid/space for the trigger process
> (although it makes sense that it _should_ be)
btw please don't be confused by my use of "user space application". In
my comments I'm talking about applications that are similar in function
to autofs itself and not processes that might trigger mounts. For
example the "autodir" package uses the autofs filesystem to provide
dynamic home directory creation. The point being that we can't know what
an application may do with the info in a request packet so we need to be
sure we cover all the cases.
Ian
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
