OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH 0/13] Pid namespaces (OpenVZ view)
Re: [PATCH 11/13] Changes to show virtual ids to user [message #13410 is a reply to message #13344] Fri, 25 May 2007 15:48 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
ebiederm is currently offline  ebiederm
Messages: 1354
Registered: February 2006
Senior Member
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org> writes:

> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru> writes:
>>
>>> That's true. Sending of signal from parent ns to children
>>> is tricky question. It has many solutions, I wanted to
>>> discuss which one is better:
>>
>> With unix domain sockets and the like it is conceivable we get
>> a pid transfer from one namespace to another and both namespaces
>> are leaf namespaces. I don't remember we can get a leaf to leaf
>> transfer when sending signals.
>
> We should not allow any transfer from leaf NS to leaf NS.
> Should I explain why?

In a checkpointable context it is a bad thing, and we can prevent it
by carefully setting up all of the namespaces.

However it is a fundamental possibility that exists, and because we
can avoid it with careful setup. I don't see a reason to deny it
if something was either inadvertantly or explicitly causes it
to happen.

Do you have another reason for denying the transfer that I'm
not thinking of?


>>
>> The worst case I can see with pid == 0. Is that it would be a bug
>> that we can fix later. For other cases it would seem to be a user
>> space API thing that we get stuck with for all time.
>
> We cannot trust userspace application to expect some pid other than
> positive. All that we can is either use some always-absent pid or
> send the signal as SI_KERNEL.
>
> Our experience show that making decisions like above causes random
> applications failures that are hard (or even impossible) to debug.

Ok. So I guess I see what you are proposing is picking an arbitrary
pid, say pid == 2, and reserving that in all pid namespaces and using
it when we have a pid that does not map to a specific namespace. I'm
fine with that.

All I care about is that we have a solution, preferably simple,
to the non-mapped pid problem.

Eric
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] [PATCH 0/3] Add group fairness to CFS
Next Topic: [RFC][PATCH 0/16] Enable cloning of pid namespace
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Aug 02 21:51:47 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 1.19208 seconds