Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On 08/10, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > >> > >> Oleg Nesterov wrote: > >> >On 08/10, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > >> >>Quoting Pavel Emelyanov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > >> >>>+/* > >> >>>+ * the namespaces access rules are: > >> >>>+ * > >> >>>+ * 1. only current task is allowed to change tsk->nsproxy pointer or > >> >>>+ * any pointer on the nsproxy itself > >> >>>+ * > >> >>>+ * 2. when accessing (i.e. reading) current task's namespaces - no > >> >>>+ * precautions should be taken - just dereference the pointers > >> >>>+ * > >> >>>+ * 3. the access to other task namespaces is performed like this > >> >>>+ * rcu_read_lock(); > >> >>>+ * nsproxy = task_nsproxy(tsk); > >> >>>+ * if (nsproxy != NULL) { > >> >>>+ * / * > >> >>>+ * * work with the namespaces here > >> >>>+ * * e.g. get the reference on one of them > >> >>>+ * * / > >> >>>+ * } / * > >> >>>+ * * NULL task_nsproxy() means that this task is > >> >>>+ * * almost dead (zombie) > >> >>>+ * * / > >> >>>+ * rcu_read_unlock(); > >> >>And lastly, I guess that the caller to switch_task_namespaces() has > >> >>to ensure that new_nsproxy either (1) is the init namespace, (2) is a > >> >>brand-new namespace to which noone else has a reference, or (3) the > >> >>caller has to hold a reference to the new_nsproxy across the call to > >> >>switch_task_namespaces(). > >> >> > >> >>As it happens the current calls fit (1) or (2). Again if we happen to > >> >>jump into the game of switching a task into another task's nsproxy, > >> >>we'll need to be mindful of (3) so that new_nsproxy can't be tossed into > >> >>the bin between > >> >> > >> >> if (new) > >> >> get_nsproxy(new); > >> > > >> >4) Unless tsk == current, get_task_namespaces(tsk) and get_nsproxy(tsk) > >> > are racy even if done under rcu_read_lock(). > >> > >> Yup :) > >> > >> It is already written in comment that only the current is allowed > >> to change its nsproxy. I.e. when switch_task_nsproxy() is called > >> for tsk other than current it's a BUG > > > > Yes, but what I meant is that this code > > > > rcu_read_lock(); > > nsproxy = task_nsproxy(tsk); > > if (nsproxy != NULL) > > get_nsproxy(nsproxy); > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > > > if (nsproxy) { > > use_it(nsproxy); > > put_nsproxy(nsproxy); > > } > > > > is not safe despite the fact we are _not_ changing tsk->nsproxy. > > > > The patch itself is correct because we don't do that, and the comment > > is right. Just it is not immediately obvious. > > Ugh. That is nasty, non obvious and almost a problem. I don't want > to do get_net(nsproxy->net_ns) from another task so I can migrate > network between namespaces. > > But thinking about it because we don't do the other decrements > until later we can still increment the counts on the individual > namespaces. We just can't share nsproxy. > > So if you did want to do an enter thing you could copy the > nsproxy object of a task under the rcu_read_lock(), and > you would be fine.
Yup, that makes sense, good idea. -serge - 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/