[Devel] Re: [PATCH 1/1] cr: define CHECKPOINT_SUBTREE flag and sysctl

[Nathan Lynch]

"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue at us.ibm.com> writes:
> Define a CHECKPOINT_SUBTREE flag for sys_checkpoint() which
> says it's ok if the the checkpointed set of tasks are not
> a fully isolated container without leaks.
>
> Define a sysctl 'ckpt_subtree_allowed' which determines
> whether subtree checkpoints are ok.  If that sysctl,
> ckpt_subtree_allowed, is 0, then the CHECKPOINT_SUBTREE flag
> may not be used.  Also, if that sysctl is 0, then both
> sys_checkpoint() and sys_restart() always require
> CAP_SYS_ADMIN.

Whether subtree checkpoint is allowed and whether non-admin checkpoint
is allowed are independent constraints, no?  Should this really be a
single flag?


> +static int check_obj_isolated(struct cr_ctx *ctx, struct cr_objref *ref)
> +{
> +	struct uts_namespace *utsns;
> +	struct ipc_namespace *ipcns;
> +	struct file *file;
> +	struct mm_struct *mm;
> +	unsigned long cnt, cnt2;
> +	int ret = 1;
> +
> +	/* note - one might think it worthwhile to put the ns
> +	 * ones under #ifdefs for the CONFIG_X_NS, but instead
> +	 * it CONFIG_CHECKPOINT should depend on all of those
> +	 */
> +	/* note2: the objhash has taken a reference, so we account
> +	 * for that */
> +
> +	cnt = ref->users + 1;
> +	switch (ref->type) {
> +	case CR_OBJ_UTSNS:
> +		utsns = ref->ptr;
> +		cnt2 = (unsigned long) atomic_read(&utsns->kref.refcount);
> +		if (cnt != cnt2) {
> +			cr_debug("uts namespace leak\n");

I'm struggling to understand what guarantee a check such as this is
supposed to be making.  I see that it will catch *some* undesirable
cases.  But "current refcount equals old refcount" does not imply that
"refcount has not changed in the meantime".


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