[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1][V5] Add reboot_pid_ns to handle the reboot syscall
On 02/03/2012 01:10 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 10:06:50 +0100
> Daniel Lezcano<> wrote:
>> In the case of a child pid namespace, rebooting the system does not
>> really makes sense. When the pid namespace is used in conjunction
>> with the other namespaces in order to create a linux container, the
>> reboot syscall leads to some problems.
>> A container can reboot the host. That can be fixed by dropping
>> the sys_reboot capability but we are unable to correctly to poweroff/
>> halt/reboot a container and the container stays stuck at the shutdown
>> time with the container's init process waiting indefinitively.
>> After several attempts, no solution from userspace was found to reliabily
>> handle the shutdown from a container.
>> This patch propose to make the init process of the child pid namespace to
>> exit with a signal status set to : SIGINT if the child pid namespace called
>> "halt/poweroff" and SIGHUP if the child pid namespace called "reboot".
>> When the reboot syscall is called and we are not in the initial
>> pid namespace, we kill the pid namespace for "HALT", "POWEROFF", "RESTART",
>> and "RESTART2". Otherwise we return EINVAL.
>> Returning EINVAL is also an easy way to check if this feature is supported
>> by the kernel when invoking another 'reboot' option like CAD.
>> By this way the parent process of the child pid namespace knows if
>> it rebooted or not and can take the right decision.
> Looks OK, although the comments need help. Is the below still true?

Yes, thanks for fixing this.

> Do you think it would be feasible to put your testcase into
> tools/testing/selftests? I'm thinking "no", because running the test
> needs elevated permissions and might reboot the user's machine(!).

Yes, right. I don't think the user will be happy with that.
Unfortunately, I don't see how to test this feature without falling into
a reboot on failure. On the other side, this very specific feature is
used in the container environment and if it fails that will be spotted
immediately and fixed. So I don't think that does make sense to add this
test in tools/testing/selftests.

[ ... ]

> gid_t pid_gid;
> int hide_pid;
> + int reboot;
> };
> This was particuarly distressing. The field was poorly named and other
> people forgotting to document their data structures doesn't mean that
> we should continue to do this!

Thanks again for adding the description. I will take care next time to
add a simple description when the field name is not self-explicit or

-- Daniel

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-03 10:01    [W:0.051 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site