From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Demi Marie Obenour <demiobenour@gmail.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Cc: Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: PID namespace init releases its file locks before its children die
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 14:38:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251003123828.GA26441@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <58ac5d49-14a9-4fe6-a5a4-746d6b73f82b@gmail.com>
Add CCs.
I can't really help, just my 2 cents...
I don't think we can change do_exit() to call exit_files() after
exit_notify().
At first glance, technically it is possible to change do_exit() so
that the exiting reaper does zap_pid_ns_processes() earlier... But
even if this is possible, I think that this complication needs more
justification.
Oleg.
On 10/02, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>
> I noticed that PID 1 in a PID namespace can release file locks (due
> to exiting) while its children are still running for a bit. If the
> locks held by PID 1 were relied to serialize the execution of its
> child processes, this could result in data corruption.
>
> Specifically, the child processes are killed via exit_notify() ->
> forget_original_parent() -> find_child_reaper() ->
> zap_pid_ns_processes(). That comes *after* exit_files(), which
> releases the file locks.
>
> While it is possible to implement this with cgroups, cgroups
> are quite a bit more complicated to use, at least compared to
> a single call to unshare() before fork().
>
> Is this intentional? Changing the behavior would make supervision
> trees significantly easier to properly implement.
> --
> Sincerely,
> Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-03 12:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-02 18:22 PID namespace init releases its file locks before its children die Demi Marie Obenour
2025-10-03 12:38 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2025-10-03 17:09 ` Demi Marie Obenour
2025-10-07 12:02 ` Christian Brauner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20251003123828.GA26441@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=demiobenour@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox