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.
> Or I am totally confused?
