lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] exit/pid_ns: comments + simple fix
On 11/24, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > Eric, Pavel, could you review 1/2 ? (documentation only). It is based on the
> > code inspection, I didn't bother to verify that my understanding matches the
> > reality ;)
> >
> > On 11/20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Probably this is not the last series... in particular it seems that we
> >> have some problems with sys_setns() in this area, but I need to recheck.
> >
> > So far only the documentation fix. I'll write another email (hopefully with the
> > patch), afaics at least setns() doesn't play well with PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPER.
> >
> > Contrary to what I thought zap_pid_ns_processes() looks fine, but it seems only
> > by accident. Unless I am totally confused, wait for "nr_hashed == init_pids"
> > could be removed after 0a01f2cc390e10633a "pidns: Make the pidns proc mount/
> > umount logic obvious". However, now that setns() + fork() can inject a task
> > into a child namespace, we need this code again for another reason.
> >
> > I _think_ we can actually remove it and simplify free_pid() as well, but lets
> > discuss this later and fix the wrong/confusing documentation first.
>
> At the very least there is the issue of rusage being wrong if we allow
> the init process to be reaped before all of it's children are reaped.

Do you mean cstime/cutime/c* accounting?

Firstly it is not clear what makes child_reaper special in _this_ sense, but
this doesn't matter at all.

The auotoreaping/EXIT_DEAD children are not accounted, only wait_task_zombie()
accumulates these counters. (just in case, accounting in __exit_signal() is
another thing).

> There is also a huge level of weird non-intuitive behavior that would
> require some substantial benefits to justify an optimization of letting
> a child exist longer than init.

Sure. That is why I said "lets discuss this later". This patch doesn't try
to change the rules. It only tries to document the current code.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-25 18:41    [W:0.063 / U:2.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site