Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] namespacefs: Proof-of-Concept
From: James Bottomley
Date: Mon Nov 22 2021 - 10:47:05 EST
On Mon, 2021-11-22 at 17:00 +0200, Yordan Karadzhov wrote:
> On 22.11.21 г. 15:44 ч., James Bottomley wrote:
> > Well, no, the information may not all exist. However, the point is
> > we can add it without adding additional namespace objects.
> > > Let's look the following case (oversimplified just to get the
> > > idea):
> > > 1. The process X is a parent of the process Y and both are in
> > > namespace 'A'.
> > > 3. "unshare" is used to place process Y (and all its child
> > > processes) in a new namespace B (A is a parent namespace of B).
> > > 4. "setns" is s used to move process X in namespace C.
> > >
> > > How would you find the parent namespace of B?
> > Actually this one's quite easy: the parent of X in your setup still
> > has it.
> Hmm, Isn't that true only if somehow we know that (3) happened before
This depends. There are only two parented namespaces: pid and user.
You said you were only interested in pid for now. setns on the process
only affects pid_for_children because you have to fork to enter the pid
namespace, so in your scenario X has a new ns/pid_for_children but its
own ns/pid never changed. It's the ns/pid not the ns/pid_for_children
which is the parent. This makes me suspect that the specific thing
you're trying to do: trace the pid parentage, can actually be done with
the information we have now.
If you do this with the user_ns, then you have a problem because it's
not fork on entry. But, as I listed in the examples, there are a load
of other problems with tracing the user_ns tree.