From: Serge Hallyn
Date: Wed Nov 06 2013 - 17:53:08 EST

Quoting Oleg Nesterov (oleg@xxxxxxxxxx):
> Hi Serge,
> On 11/06, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> >
> > Hi Oleg,
> >
> > commit 40a0d32d1eaffe6aac7324ca92604b6b3977eb0e :
> > "fork: unify and tighten up CLONE_NEWUSER/CLONE_NEWPID checks"
> > breaks lxc-attach in 3.12. That code forks a child which does
> > setns() and then does a clone(CLONE_PARENT). That way the
> > grandchild can be in the right namespaces (which the child was
> > not) and be a child of the original task, which is the monitor.
> Thanks...
> Yes, this is what 40a0d32d1ea explicitly tries to disallow.
> > Is there a real danger in allowing CLONE_PARENT
> > when current->nsproxy->pidns_for_children is not our pidns,
> > or was this done out of an "over-abundance of caution"?
> I am not sure... This all was based on the long discussion, and
> it was decided that the CLONE_PARENT check should be consistent
> wrt CLONE_NEWPID and pidns_for_children != task_active_pid_ns().

So apart from peers seeing the new task as having pid 0, and
sigchild going to the grandparent, are there any other side
effects? Is ptrace an issue? (I took a quick look but it
doesn't seem like it)

If not, then I very much think we should continue to allow this.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at