Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 00/11] netns: don't switch namespace while creating kernel sockets

[Ying Xue <ying.xue@windriver.com>]

On 05/08/2015 04:01 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Cong Wang <cwang@twopensource.com> writes:
> 
>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Eric W. Biederman
>> <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>>> Cong Wang <cwang@twopensource.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Eric W. Biederman
>>>> <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>>>>> Cong Wang <cwang@twopensource.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why does this have to be so complicated? We can simply avoid
>>>>>> calling ops_init() by skipping those in cleanup_list, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that there is a single list of methods to call and if you
>>>>> simply skip calling the initialization methods for a struct net and add
>>>>> yourself to the list cleanup_net will then call the cleanup methods
>>>>> without calling the cleanup methods.
>>>>
>>>> If you mean pernet_list, ops->list has been already added before
>>>> for_each_net().
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Simply limiting new network namespace registrations to a point when
>>>>> network namespaces are not being registered or unregisted seems like
>>>>> the simplest way to achieve this effect.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Literally, any point before ops_init().
>>>
>>> Think about what that what it means to add a set of operations to the
>>> pernet_list and then to skip a network namespace with a count of 0 and
>>> then to have that network namespace exit with those methods on
>>> pernet_list.
>>>
>>
>> That is easy to solve, isn't it?
> 
> Nope.  That doesn't work.
> 

Cong, although I don't know why Eric confirmed your solution did not work, in my
view it really exists a bit fault especially in locking policy. For instance,
net->cleanup_list may be linked to cleanup_list list and probably it's inserted
in net_kill_list too, and the both global lists are protected by two different
locks respectively. But when we check list_empty(&net->cleanup_list), any lock
is not held.

However, except for the point, overall, I think your idea is workable.

So, Eric, can you please further explain why Cong's proposal doesn't work?

Thanks,
Ying

> Eric
> 
>