[PATCH 09/10] Enable multiple instances of devpts

Serge E. Hallyn serue at us.ibm.com
Mon Sep 29 08:29:51 PDT 2008


Quoting sukadev at linux.vnet.ibm.com (sukadev at linux.vnet.ibm.com):
> Serge E. Hallyn [serue at us.ibm.com] wrote:
> | Quoting sukadev at linux.vnet.ibm.com (sukadev at linux.vnet.ibm.com):
> | > | > @@ -232,6 +246,8 @@ static int devpts_show_options(struct seq_file *seq, struct vfsmount *vfs)
> | > | >  	seq_printf(seq, ",mode=%03o", opts->mode);
> | > | >  #ifdef CONFIG_DEVPTS_MULTIPLE_INSTANCES
> | > | >  	seq_printf(seq, ",ptmxmode=%03o", opts->ptmxmode);
> | > | > +	if (opts->newinstance)
> | > | > +		seq_printf(seq, ",newinstance");
> | > | 
> | > | Is actually that something we want to show?  It doesn't seem
> | > | informative.
> | > 
> | > Without this users have no easy way of knowing whether they have a 
> | > private mount specially if they mounted from command line ?
> 
> You mean in a nested container ? I agree that it does not help then.
> 
> | 
> | If they were in a container to begin with, then they still don't know.
> | 
> | Now if you were to keep a unique per-instance id and have show_options
> | list 'instance=%x', that would be helpful.  Either that or just
> | dropping the info altogether make sense.  This 'newinstance' listing
> | is meaningless.
> | 
> 
> Another way to look at it is that it is a mount option that was specified
> and we just report it. It may not be useful always but might help in some
> cases. But I am fine either way.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> | > | > +
> | > | > +		err = mknod_ptmx(mnt->mnt_sb);
> | > | > +		if (err) {
> | > | > +			dput(mnt->mnt_sb->s_root);
> | > | > +			deactivate_super(mnt->mnt_sb);
> | > | > +		} else
> | > | > +			devpts_mnt = mnt;
> | > | > +
> | > | > +		return err;
> | > | 
> | > | There is no locking here, so in early-userspace two competing processes
> | > | could both try to set devpts_mnt, right?
> | > 
> | > Hmm. I was thinking there would be only one thread calling the
> | > vfs_kern_mount() in init_devpts_fs.
> | 
> | But what if init happens to (perhaps mistakenly) lead to 2 racing ones?
> | 
> | Sure it's just a small memory leak, but why not just prevent it.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> | 
> | > | 
> | > | > +	}
> | > | > +
> | > | > +	return get_sb_ref(devpts_mnt->mnt_sb, flags, data, mnt);
> | > | > +}
> | > | > +
> | > | >  static int devpts_get_sb(struct file_system_type *fs_type,
> | > | >  	int flags, const char *dev_name, void *data, struct vfsmount *mnt)
> | > | >  {
> | > | > +	int new;
> | > | > +
> | > | > +	new = is_new_instance_mount(data);
> | > | > +	if (new < 0)
> | > | > +		return new;
> | > | > +
> | > | > +	if (new)
> | > | > +		return new_pts_mount(fs_type, flags, data, mnt);
> | > | > +
> | > | > +	return init_pts_mount(fs_type, flags, data, mnt);
> | > | 
> | > | Wait a sec - so if a container does
> | > | 
> | > | 	mount -t devpts -o newinstance none /dev/pts
> | > | 	and then later on just does
> | > | 	mount -t devpts none /dev/pts
> | > | 
> | > | it'll get the init_pts_ns, not the one it had created?
> | > 
> | > Yes.  Should we treat the latter as remount of the private instance ?
> | > If so, user could add '-oremount' ?
> | > 
> | > The logic seems simple: With newinstance create a private namespace.
> | > Without newinstance, bind to initial ns.
> | 
> | But if I'm in a container in a new mounts ns and somehow managed 
> | to umount -l /dev/pts, shouldn't i be able to remount my container's
> | devpts by just doing 'mount -t devpts devpts /dev/pts'?
> 
> Now wouldn't that require us to associate the devpts mount with some
> notion of a container ? (a namespace object in nsproxy of container-init 
> like we do with /proc).

Yes.

> Yes, after 'umount -l'  we have lost _that_ devpts ns and we may have to
> 'redo' the relevant container-init parts

It all just feels fragile.

I realize this is an attempt to do the 'pure fs approach' you were asked
to do.  I just don't like the resulting semantics.

-serge


More information about the Containers mailing list