From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH review 2/3] pidns: Stop pid allocation when init dies
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:31:21 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87bodlbzhi.fsf@xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121222165438.GA19680@redhat.com> (Oleg Nesterov's message of "Sat, 22 Dec 2012 17:54:38 +0100")
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:
> On 12/21, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> --- a/include/linux/pid_namespace.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/pid_namespace.h
>> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ struct pid_namespace {
>> struct kref kref;
>> struct pidmap pidmap[PIDMAP_ENTRIES];
>> int last_pid;
>> - int nr_hashed;
>> + unsigned int nr_hashed;
>> struct task_struct *child_reaper;
>> struct kmem_cache *pid_cachep;
>> unsigned int level;
>> @@ -42,6 +42,8 @@ struct pid_namespace {
>>
>> extern struct pid_namespace init_pid_ns;
>>
>> +#define PIDNS_HASH_ADDING (1U << 31)
>
> Yes, agreed. We can't rely on PF_EXITING/whatever, we need the explicit
> flag.
The simpler and more comprehensible we can make this code the better.
We have had too many surprises in this code because of complex failure
modes.
> 1/2 looks fine too. Only one nit about init_pid_ns below...
Then I will add your acked-by to the first patch.
>> @@ -319,7 +318,7 @@ struct pid *alloc_pid(struct pid_namespace *ns)
>>
>> upid = pid->numbers + ns->level;
>> spin_lock_irq(&pidmap_lock);
>> - if (ns->nr_hashed < 0)
>> + if (ns->nr_hashed < PIDNS_HASH_ADDING)
>
> I won't insist, but perhaps if "(!(nr_hashed & PIDNS_HASH_ADDING))"
> looks more understandable.
I will stare at it both ways and post an updated patch.
I'm not certain which form I like better. Certainly the decrements
are doing a double duty.
>> +void disable_pid_allocation(struct pid_namespace *ns)
>> +{
>> + spin_lock_irq(&pidmap_lock);
>> + if (ns->nr_hashed >= PIDNS_HASH_ADDING)
>
> Do we really need this check? It seems that PIDNS_HASH_ADDING
> bit must be always set when disable_pid_allocation() is called.
>
>> + ns->nr_hashed -= PIDNS_HASH_ADDING;
>
> Anyway, nr_hashed &= ~PIDNS_HASH_ADDING looks simpler and doesn't
> need a check.
That I agree with.
> But again, I won't insist this is minor and subjective.
>
>> struct pid *find_pid_ns(int nr, struct pid_namespace *ns)
>> {
>> struct hlist_node *elem;
>> @@ -584,7 +591,7 @@ void __init pidmap_init(void)
>> /* Reserve PID 0. We never call free_pidmap(0) */
>> set_bit(0, init_pid_ns.pidmap[0].page);
>> atomic_dec(&init_pid_ns.pidmap[0].nr_free);
>> - init_pid_ns.nr_hashed = 1;
>> + init_pid_ns.nr_hashed = 1 + PIDNS_HASH_ADDING;
>
> The obly chunk which doesn't look exactly correct to me, although this
> doesn't really matter. Hmm, actually the code was already wrong before
> this patch.
>
> I think init_pid_ns.nr_hashed should be PIDNS_HASH_ADDING, we should not
> add 1 to account the unused zero pid, and kernel_thread(kernel_init) was
> not called yet.
Good point because the zero pid does not get hashed. Who knows perhaps
with a little more evolution create_pid_ns can be used to create the
initial pid namespace.
I am also going to add "BUILD_BUG_ON(PID_MAX_LIMIT >= PIDNS_HASH_ADDING);"
to document that the pid values and PIDNS_HASH_ADDING can't overlap.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-22 20:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-22 4:56 [PATCH review 0/3] pid namespaces fixes Eric W. Biederman
2012-12-22 4:57 ` [PATCH review 1/3] pidns: Outlaw thread creation after unshare(CLONE_NEWPID) Eric W. Biederman
2012-12-22 19:39 ` Rob Landley
2012-12-22 20:16 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-12-22 4:58 ` [PATCH review 2/3] pidns: Stop pid allocation when init dies Eric W. Biederman
2012-12-22 16:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-22 20:31 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2012-12-25 8:24 ` [PATCH review 2/3 take 2] " Eric W. Biederman
2012-12-25 16:59 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-22 4:58 ` [PATCH review 3/3] proc: Allow proc_free_inum to be called from any context Eric W. Biederman
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=87bodlbzhi.fsf@xmission.com \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.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