[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220502213117.GS7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 17:31:18 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: Alexey Izbyshev <izbyshev@...ras.ru>, musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: vfork()-based posix_spawn() has more failure modes than
fork()-based one
On Mon, May 02, 2022 at 11:25:07PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Rich Felker:
>
> > I'm trying to understand how this comes to be. The child should
> > inherit the namespaces of the parent and thus should not be in a
> > different namespace that precludes spawn. I'm guessing this is some
> > oddity where unshare doesn't affect the process itself, only its
> > children? If so, it seems like a bug that it doesn't affect the
> > process itself after execve (after unshare(1) runs your test program),
> > but that probably can't be fixed now on the Linux side for stability
> > reasons. :(
>
> It's about fundamentally conflicting requirements.
>
> The vDSO data mapping needs to store the time offset, so it has to be
> distinct from the original namespace. vfork preserves the VM sharing.
> It's not possible to do both things at the same time.
>
> unshare(CLONE_NEWTIME) should have been specified to only take effect
> after execve, when the vDSO is remapped anyway.
Yes, exactly. The bug is that someone confused processes and process
images (fork and exec) when coming up with the constraint and now
we're probably stuck with it. *sigh*
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
