Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:03:15 -0700 | From | Sukadev Bhattiprolu <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][v8][PATCH 0/10] Implement clone3() system call |
| |
Eric W. Biederman [ebiederm@xmission.com] wrote: | > clone3() seemed to be the leading contender from what I've read so far. | > Does anyone still object to clone3() after reading the whole thread? | | I object to what clone3() is. The name is not particularly interesting. | | The sanity checks for assigning pids are missing and there is a todo | about it. I am not comfortable with assigning pids to a new process | in a pid namespace with other processes user space processes executing | in it.
Could you clarify ? How is the call to alloc_pidmap() from clone3() different from the call from clone() itself ?
| | How we handle a clone extension depends critically on if we want to | create a processes for restart in user space or kernel space. | | Could some one give me or point me at a strong case for creating the | processes for restart in user space?
There has been a lot of discussion on this with reference to the Checkpoint/Restart patchset. See http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/13/401 for instance.
| | The pid assignment code is currently ugly. I asked that we just pass | in the min max pid pids that already exist into the core pid | assignment function and a constrained min/max that only admits a | single pid when we are allocating a struct pid for restart. That was | not done and now we have a weird abortion with unnecessary special cases.
I did post a version of the patch attemptint to implement that. As pointed out in:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/17/445
we would need more checks in alloc_pidmap() to cover cases like min or max being invalid or min being greater than max or max being greater than pid_max etc. Those checks also made the code ugly (imo).
Sukadev
| |