Re: For review: pid_namespaces(7) man page

Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2013-03-05T08:37:28Z

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
> "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Eric,
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Eric W. Biederman
>> <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>>> "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Eric W. Biederman
>> <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 02/28/2013 05:24:07 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>>>>> Because the above unshare(2) and setns(2) calls only change the
>>>>>>>> PID namespace for created children, the clone(2) calls neces‐
>>>>>>>> sarily put the new thread in a different PID namespace from the
>>>>>>>> calling thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Um, no they don't. They fail. That's the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Good catch.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They _would_ put the new
>>>>>>> thread in a different PID namespace, which breaks the definition
>> of threads.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above unshare(2) and setns(2) calls change the PID namespace
>> of
>>>>>>> children created by subsequent clone(2) calls, which is
>> incompatible
>>>>>>> with CLONE_VM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I decided on:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point here is that unshare(2) and setns(2) change the PID
>>>>>> namespace for created children but not for the calling process,
>>>>>> while clone(2) CLONE_VM specifies the creation of a new thread
>>>>>> in the same process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we make that "for all new tasks created" instead of "created
>>>>> children"
>>>>>
>>>>> Othewise someone might expect CLONE_THREAD would work as you
>>>>> CLONE_THREAD creates a thread and not a child...
>>>>
>>>> The term "task" is kernel-space talk that rarely appears in man
>> pages,
>>>> so I am reluctant to use it.
>>>
>>> With respect to clone and in this case I am not certain we can
>> properly
>>> describe what happens without talking about tasks. But it is worth
>>> a try.
>>>
>>>
>>>> How about this:
>>>>
>>>> The point here is that unshare(2) and setns(2) change the PID
>>>> namespace for processes subsequently created by the caller, but
>>>> not for the calling process, while clone(2) CLONE_VM specifies
>>>> the creation of a new thread in the same process.
>>>
>>> Hmm. How about this.
>>>
>>> The point here is that unshare(2) and setns(2) change the PID
>>> namespace that will be used by in all subsequent calls to clone
>>> and fork by the caller, but not for the calling process, and
>>> that all threads in a process must share the same PID
>>> namespace. Which makes a subsequent clone(2) CLONE_VM
>>> specify the creation of a new thread in the a different PID
>>> namespace but in the same process which is impossible.
>>
>> I did a little tidying:
>>
>> The point here is that unshare(2) and setns(2) change the
>> PID namespace that will be used in all subsequent calls
>> to clone(2) and fork(2), but do not change the PID names‐
>> pace of the calling process. Because a subsequent
>> clone(2) CLONE_VM would imply the creation of a new
>> thread in a different PID namespace, the operation is not
>> permitted.
>>
>> Okay?
>
> That seems reasonable.
>
> CLONE_THREAD might be better to talk about. The check is CLONE_VM
> because it is easier and CLONE_THREAD implies CLONE_THREAD.
>
>> Having asked that, I realize that I'm still not quite comfortable with
>> this text. I think the problem is really one of terminology. At the
>> start of this passage in the page, there is the sentence:
>>
>> Every thread in a process must be in the
>> same PID namespace.
>>
>> Can you define "thread" in this context?
>
> Most definitely a thread group created with CLONE_THREAD. It is pretty
> ugly in just the old fashioned CLONE_VM case too, but that might be
> legal.
>
> In a few cases I think the implementation overshoots and test for VM
> sharing instead of thread group membership because VM sharing is easier
> to test for, and we already have tests for that.

So, in summary, the point is that CLONE_VM is being used as a proxy
for CLONE_THREAD because the former is easier to test for, and
CLONE_THREAD requires CLONE_VM, right?

--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Author of "The Linux Programming Interface"; http://man7.org/tlpi/