[Devel] Re: [PATCH 2/2] Replace pid_t in autofs with struct pid reference

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm at xmission.com):
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue at us.ibm.com> writes:
> >
> > So is the pid used for anything other than debugging?
> >
> > In any case, here is a replacement patch which sends the pid number
> > in the pid_namespace of the process which did the autofs4 mount.
> >
> > Still not sure whether that is actually what makes sense...
> >
> > From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue at us.ibm.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH] autofs: prevent pid wraparound in waitqs
> >
> > Instead of storing pid numbers for waitqs, store references
> > to struct pids.  Also store a reference to the mounter's pid
> > namespace in the autofs4 sb info so that pid numbers for
> > mount miss and expiry msgs can send the pid# in the mounter's
> > pidns.
> 
> Hmm.  Not quite what I would have expected but given that
> we are sending data over a pipe that sounds reasonable.
> 
> If it wasn't a pipe we would really want to do this in
> the context of the process receiving the message, but since
> a pipe can receive a message, and then be passed to another
> process we clearly can't know the pid namespace of the
> process receiving the message.
> 
> Therefore just caching the pid namespace either on pipe
> open or on mount makes sense.  pipe open might be better.

Right, but the pipe is always opened on mount I think.  (at
autofs4_fill_super)

> Serge we really need to introduce __pid_nr in a separate
> patch.

Agreed.

> And we really seem to be confusing Ian.
> 
> Plus we have some pid namespace ref counting issues we need
> to handle carefully.
> 
> Let's stop working on autofs4 for a bit, fix the pid namespace
> infrastructure so there is enough of it to handle autofs4 and
> then come back.

Agreed.  I just wasn't comfortable stopping until I felt we knew how
autofs4 was going to be addressed.  I think we know now, plus we've
verified another definite need for the __pid_nr(pidns, pid) helper.

> Either that or take autofs4 in two passes.  Pass one we do what
> we can with the current infrastructure.  Pass two after we fix up
> the infrastructure including introducing __pid_nr we come back
> and update autofs4 to handle multiple pid namespaces properly.

Nah, let's hold off, and I'll sit on a patch to send out once rest of
the infrastructure goes in.

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