[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b4fb6c1a0a1fb99b1deff1252f7ae9c6@ispras.ru>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 01:04:41 +0300
From: Alexey Izbyshev <izbyshev@...ras.ru>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: vfork()-based posix_spawn() has more failure modes than
fork()-based one
On 2022-05-03 00:31, Rich Felker wrote:
> 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*
>
Status update: the recently released kernel 6.2 contains the fix[1], so
we're not stuck with this bug after all!
[1]
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=2b5f9dad32ed19e8db3b0f10a84aa824a219803b
Alexey
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.
