From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: call_usermodehelper_root helper introduced
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 11:35:56 -0700
Message-ID: <87wqqqdfqr.fsf@xmission.com>
References: <20130522072840.27720.85023.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
	<878v36ex6n.fsf@xmission.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, serge.hallyn@canonical.com,
	jlayton@redhat.com, lucas.demarchi@profusion.mobi,
	rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	oleg@redhat.com, bfields@fieldses.org, bharrosh@panasas.com,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	devel@openvz.org
To: Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@parallels.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <878v36ex6n.fsf@xmission.com> (Eric W. Biederman's message of
	"Wed, 22 May 2013 10:33:52 -0700")
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:

> I am missing a lot of context here and capturing the context of a
> process at time time we mount the filesystem and reconstituing it in
> call user mode helper seems like something we could do.

If we want to do something like this the only sane thing I can see is to
have a per container version of kthread call it uthread.  That the user
mode helper code would use to launch a new process.

Anything else and I expect we will be tearing our hair out for the rest
of our lives with weird corner cases or unexpected semantics.

At first glace I would exepct uthread to be per pid namespace in
implementation.

Eric