[Devel] Re: + remove-the-likelypid-check-in-copy_process.patch added to -mm tree

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 03/17, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Well the initial kernel process does not have a struct pid so when
> > it's children start doing:
> > 	attach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_PGID, task_group(p));
> > 	attach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_SID, task_session(p));
> > We will get an oops.
> 
> So far this is the only reason to have init_struct_pid. Because the
> boot CPU (swapper) forks, right?

Damn. I am afraid I was not clear again :) Not init_struct_pid, but

	+       .pids = {                                                       \
	+               [PIDTYPE_PID]  = INIT_PID_LINK(PIDTYPE_PID),            \
	+               [PIDTYPE_PGID] = INIT_PID_LINK(PIDTYPE_PGID),           \
	+               [PIDTYPE_SID]  = INIT_PID_LINK(PIDTYPE_SID),            \
	+       },                                                              \

for INIT_TASK().

> > So a dummy unhashed struct pid was added for the idle threads.
> > Allowing several special cases in the code to be removed.
> > 
> > With that chance the previous special case to force the idle thread
> > init session 1 pgrp 1 no longer works because attach_pid no longer
> > looks at the pid value but instead at the struct pid pointers.
> > 
> > So we had to add the __set_special_pids() to continue to keep init
> > in session 1 pgrp 1.  Since /sbin/init calls setsid() that our setting
> > the sid and the pgrp may not be strictly necessary.  Still is better
> > to not take any chances.
> 
> Yes, yes, I see. But my (very unclear, sorry) question was: shouldn't we
> change INIT_SIGNALS then? /sbin/init inherits ->pgrp == ->_session == 1,
> in that case __set_special_pids(1,1) does nothing.

... and thus /sbin/init remains attached to the .pids above, no?

Oleg.

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers