On 08/22, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 08/22, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > Yes. Before this patch do_fork() did: > >> > > >> > if (clone_flags & (CLONE_NEWUSER | CLONE_NEWPID)) { > >> > if (clone_flags & (CLONE_THREAD|CLONE_PARENT)) > >> > return -EINVAL; > >> > } > >> > > >> > however, let me repeat, CLONE_PARENT after unshare(CLONE_NEWPID) was > >> > allowed. With this patch CLONE_PARENT is nacked in both cases. > >> > >> Is this -stable-worthy? > > > > Honestly, I do not know. I do not want to abuse -stable, and I will > > sleep better if this patch won't go into the stable trees ;) > > > > OTOH, I think that at least 1/3 is probably -stable material... Since > > I am going to send v2, I would not mind to add [email protected] > > if both you and Eric agree. > > This may allow creation of a process with tgid and pid in different > pid namespaces. If so, I have no idea what the consequences would be.
and share the parent with the creator. Not good. But probably not too bad, one can abuse ->pidns_install() anyway, create a child in another ns, exit. Like it or not but pid_ns is "special" and you even sent the patch to reflect this sad^W fact. Anyway. The main point of this patch is the consistency (plus imho it cleanups/simplifies the code). Both CLONE_NEWPID and "task_active_pid_ns() != pid_ns" create a task in another namespace, we should use the same restrictions. And you seem to agree with this change, can I take it as your ack ? I am going to preserve your acks in 1-2 and resend. Oleg. -- 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/
