[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH]: exec: avoid propagating PF_NO_SETAFFINITY into userspace child
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 05:20:25PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 04:34:43PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > But note that in the longer term we might want even more. We probably
> > > want a non-daemonized thread controlled by the user-space. And even
> > > more, this thread should be per-namespace (this needs a lot more
> > > discussion).
> >
> > Which namespace? PID namespace I presume where we can have a 'new' init
> > task and everything.
> >
> > I'm not sure, are any of these things (workqueues, userspace helpers)
> > pid namespace aware? If not it doesn't seem to make sense to expose this
> > to nested PID namespaces and would be something special for the root
> > namespace.
> Not sure I understand correctly. But yes, of course, it is not that
> call_usermodehelper() should be namespace-friendly "unconditionally".
> We need another API (although perhaps we can simply add UMH_NAMESPACE
> flag, this doesn't matter).
> Just for example, the piped core handler. Currently it is hardly useful
> in containers.

I'm afraid I'm not much familiar with the entire namespace thing other
than broad concepts.

But if there's specific per-pid-namespace functionality for
usermode-helpers, then yes it makes sense to have per-pid-namespace

So in specific, you say that piping a core file into a usermode helper
is currently busted in pid-namespaces and that fixing that would indeed
introduce such pid-namespace awareness to the usermode-helper stuff?

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-28 18:21    [W:0.069 / U:1.356 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site