On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 18:13 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/16, Ian Kent wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 17:55 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 02/10, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 17:03 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand. but I still can't understand why we can't implement
> > > > > something
> > > > > like
> > > > > enter_ns(struct nsproxy *p)
> > > > > {
> > > > > new_nsproxy = create_new_namespaces(...);
> > > > >
> > > > > p->mnt_ns->ns->ops->install(new_nsproxy, ...);
> > > > > p->pid_ns_for_children->ns->ops->install(new_nsproxy,
> > > > > ...);
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > switch_task_namespaces(new_nsproxy);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > Why we should abuse fs/proc ?
> > > >
> > > > That sounds like a much better approach.
> > > > Your saying just take a reference to the nsproxy from the located
> > > > process and use it instead, right?
> > >
> > > Yes,
> >
> > I'm still not sure if this can be done (at least without surgery to the
> > namespace implementation) and I think I've been here before which is
> > what lead to the file_open_root() approach.
> >
> > The difficulty is the second parameter to the install() call above, the
> > struct ns_common. In setns() it's obtained from the procfs file inode
> > and the file open is what's used to obtain each namespace type (in the
> > form of a struct ns_common) from a process context different from
> > current, current being the thread runner process.
> >
> > I might still be able to work out a (viable) way to obtain the
> > appropriate ns_common struct in each case without a file open but it's
> > hard to see how.
>
> Not sure I understand... Every "namespace" pointer "struct nsproxy" has
> the "struct ns_common ns" you need? So you can do (for example)
>
> p->mnt_ns->ns->ops->install(new_nsproxy, &p->mnt_ns->ns);
>
> or I missed something? (userns differs, you need cred->user_ns, of course).
I didn't see that when I looked so I missed it, thanks for pointing it
out.
>
>
> Perhaps I missed something, but this doesn't look like a problem...
>
> The real problem is that , let me repeat, is that pidns_install() does not
> and can't change active_pid_ns. So I think that kernel_thread_in_ns() probably
> make more sense.
Right, I didn't miss that when you mentioned it.
Changing the execution order using your kernel_thread_in_ns() suggestion
is clearly what needs to be done.
Ian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
