Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH 2/2] extend clone_flags using parent_tidptr argument
| [PATCH 2/2] extend clone_flags using parent_tidptr argument [message #26879] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 17:27  |
Cedric Le Goater
Messages: 443
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
From: Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com>
We have at least 2 patchsets requiring each a new clone flag and
there it is, we've reached the limit, none are left.
This patch uses the CLONE_DETACHED flag (unused) as a marker to
extend the clone flags through the parent_tidptr argument.
Initially, we thought on using the last bit but it has recently
been taken by CLONE_IO.
Obviously, this hack doesn't work for unshare() for which I don't
see any other solution than to add a new syscall :
long sys_unshare64(unsigned long clone_flags_high,
unsigned long clone_flags_low);
Is this the right path to extend the clone flags ? should we add a
clone64() rather than hack the extending clone() ?
Thanks for any comments !
C.
Signed-off-by: Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com>
---
include/linux/sched.h | 1 +
kernel/fork.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: 2.6.24-mm1/include/linux/sched.h
===================================================================
--- 2.6.24-mm1.orig/include/linux/sched.h
+++ 2.6.24-mm1/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
#define CLONE_NEWPID 0x20000000 /* New pid namespace */
#define CLONE_NEWNET 0x40000000 /* New network namespace */
#define CLONE_IO 0x80000000 /* Clone io context */
+#define CLONE_EXTFLAGS CLONE_DETACHED /* use parent_tidptr as an extended set of flags */
/*
* Scheduling policies
Index: 2.6.24-mm1/kernel/fork.c
===================================================================
--- 2.6.24-mm1.orig/kernel/fork.c
+++ 2.6.24-mm1/kernel/fork.c
@@ -1012,6 +1012,14 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(
struct task_struct *p;
int cgroup_callbacks_done = 0;
+ /*
+ * It is not permitted to specify both CLONE_EXTFLAGS and
+ * CLONE_PARENT_SETTID
+ */
+ if ((clone_flags & (CLONE_EXTFLAGS|CLONE_PARENT_SETTID)) ==
+ (CLONE_EXTFLAGS|CLONE_PARENT_SETTID))
+ return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
+
if ((clone_flags & (CLONE_NEWNS|CLONE_FS)) == (CLONE_NEWNS|CLONE_FS))
return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
@@ -1455,6 +1463,7 @@ long do_fork(unsigned long clone_flags,
struct task_struct *p;
int trace = 0;
long nr;
+ u64 clone_flags64 = clone_flags;
/*
* We hope to recycle these flags after 2.6.26
@@ -1479,7 +1488,10 @@ long do_fork(unsigned long clone_flags,
clone_flags |= CLONE_PTRACE;
}
- p = copy_process(clone_flags, stack_start, regs, stack_size,
+ if (clone_flags & CLONE_EXTFLAGS)
+ clone_flags64 = ((u64) (uintptr_t) parent_tidptr << 32) | clone_flags;
+
+ p = copy_process(clone_flags64, stack_start, regs, stack_size,
child_tidptr, NULL);
/*
* Do this prior waking up the new thread - the thread pointer
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
|
|
|
|
| Re: [PATCH 2/2] extend clone_flags using parent_tidptr argument [message #26890 is a reply to message #26879] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 20:24  |
serue
Messages: 750
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quoting Cedric Le Goater (legoater@free.fr):
> From: Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com>
>
> We have at least 2 patchsets requiring each a new clone flag and there it
> is, we've reached the limit, none are left.
> This patch uses the CLONE_DETACHED flag (unused) as a marker to extend the
Are we pretty sure that there is no legacy software out there which has
continued to specify CLONE_DETACHED since the kernel ignores it?
> clone flags through the parent_tidptr argument.
>
> Initially, we thought on using the last bit but it has recently been taken
> by CLONE_IO.
>
> Obviously, this hack doesn't work for unshare() for which I don't see any
> other solution than to add a new syscall :
> long sys_unshare64(unsigned long clone_flags_high, unsigned long
> clone_flags_low);
>
>
>
> Is this the right path to extend the clone flags ? should we add a
> clone64() rather than hack the extending clone() ?
> Thanks for any comments !
>
> C.
>
> Signed-off-by: Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com>
> ---
> include/linux/sched.h | 1 +
> kernel/fork.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: 2.6.24-mm1/include/linux/sched.h
> ===================================================================
> --- 2.6.24-mm1.orig/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ 2.6.24-mm1/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> #define CLONE_NEWPID 0x20000000 /* New pid namespace */
> #define CLONE_NEWNET 0x40000000 /* New network namespace */
> #define CLONE_IO 0x80000000 /* Clone io context */
> +#define CLONE_EXTFLAGS CLONE_DETACHED /* use parent_tidptr as an extended
> set of flags */
>
> /*
> * Scheduling policies
> Index: 2.6.24-mm1/kernel/fork.c
> ===================================================================
> --- 2.6.24-mm1.orig/kernel/fork.c
> +++ 2.6.24-mm1/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -1012,6 +1012,14 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(
> struct task_struct *p;
> int cgroup_callbacks_done = 0;
>
> + /*
> + * It is not permitted to specify both CLONE_EXTFLAGS and
> + * CLONE_PARENT_SETTID
> + */
> + if ((clone_flags & (CLONE_EXTFLAGS|CLONE_PARENT_SETTID)) ==
> + (CLONE_EXTFLAGS|CLONE_PARENT_SETTID))
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> +
> if ((clone_flags & (CLONE_NEWNS|CLONE_FS)) == (CLONE_NEWNS|CLONE_FS))
> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>
> @@ -1455,6 +1463,7 @@ long do_fork(unsigned long clone_flags,
> struct task_struct *p;
> int trace = 0;
> long nr;
> + u64 clone_flags64 = clone_flags;
>
> /*
> * We hope to recycle these flags after 2.6.26
> @@ -1479,7 +1488,10 @@ long do_fork(unsigned long clone_flags,
> clone_flags |= CLONE_PTRACE;
> }
>
> - p = copy_process(clone_flags, stack_start, regs, stack_size,
> + if (clone_flags & CLONE_EXTFLAGS)
> + clone_flags64 = ((u64) (uintptr_t) parent_tidptr << 32) | clone_flags;
> +
> + p = copy_process(clone_flags64, stack_start, regs, stack_size,
> child_tidptr, NULL);
> /*
> * Do this prior waking up the new thread - the thread pointer
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [PATCH 2/2] extend clone_flags using parent_tidptr argument [message #26901 is a reply to message #26892] |
Tue, 05 February 2008 08:20 |
Cedric Le Goater
Messages: 443
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:24:16 -0600
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Quoting Cedric Le Goater (legoater@free.fr):
>>> From: Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com>
>>>
>>> We have at least 2 patchsets requiring each a new clone flag and there it
>>> is, we've reached the limit, none are left.
>>> This patch uses the CLONE_DETACHED flag (unused) as a marker to extend the
>> Are we pretty sure that there is no legacy software out there which has
>> continued to specify CLONE_DETACHED since the kernel ignores it?
>
> Please see -mm's
> clone-prepare-to-recycle-clone_detached-and-clone_stopped.patch
>
> That patch has been cut back to only recycle CLONE_STOPPED because there
> indeed was software out there which is setting CLONE_DETACHED.
>
> See http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2007-11/msg04293.html
bummer, I used the wrong one :/
Thanks,
C.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Jul 16 20:35:54 GMT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03018 seconds
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
