Re: [RFC][v8][PATCH 0/10] Implement clone3() system call

[Sukadev Bhattiprolu]

Eric W. Biederman [ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
| > clone3() seemed to be the leading contender from what I've read so far.
| > Does anyone still object to clone3() after reading the whole thread?
| 
| I object to what clone3() is.  The name is not particularly interesting.
| 
| The sanity checks for assigning pids are missing and there is a todo
| about it.  I am not comfortable with assigning pids to a new process
| in a pid namespace with other processes user space processes executing
| in it.

Could you clarify ? How is the call to alloc_pidmap() from clone3() different
from the call from clone() itself ?

| 
| How we handle a clone extension depends critically on if we want to
| create a processes for restart in user space or kernel space.
| 
| Could some one give me or point me at a strong case for creating the
| processes for restart in user space?

There has been a lot of discussion on this with reference to the
Checkpoint/Restart patchset. See http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/13/401
for instance.

| 
| The pid assignment code is currently ugly.  I asked that we just pass
| in the min max pid pids that already exist into the core pid
| assignment function and a constrained min/max that only admits a
| single pid when we are allocating a struct pid for restart.  That was
| not done and now we have a weird abortion with unnecessary special cases.

I did post a version of the patch attemptint to implement that. As
pointed out in:

	http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/17/445

we would need more checks in alloc_pidmap() to cover cases like min or max
being invalid or min being greater than max or max being greater than pid_max
etc. Those checks also made the code ugly (imo).

Sukadev
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/