Update with all the missing errors the syscall can return, the
behaviour the syscall should have w.r.t. to copies within single
files, etc.
[Amir] updates for final released version.
Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
In RETURN VALUE, point reader at subsection noting that the return
value of the raw sched_setaffinity() system call differs from the
wrapper function in glibc.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Add entries for the new cache geometry values of the auxiliary
vector that got included in the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Raphael Moreira Zinsly <rzinsly@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Using signalfd(2) with epoll(7) and fork(2) can lead to some head
scratching.
It seems that when a signalfd file descriptor is added to epoll
you will only get notifications for signals sent to the process
that added the file descriptor to epoll.
So if you have a signalfd fd registered with epoll and then call
fork(2), perhaps by way of daemon(3) for example. Then you will
find that you no longer get notifications for signals sent to the
newly forked process.
User kentonv on ycombinator[0] explained it thus
"One place where the inconsistency gets weird is when you
use signalfd with epoll. The epoll will flag events on the
signalfd based on the process where the signalfd was
registered with epoll, not the process where the epoll is
being used. One case where this can be surprising is if you
set up a signalfd and an epoll and then fork() for the
purpose of daemonizing -- now you will find that your epoll
mysteriously doesn't deliver any events for the signalfd
despite the signalfd otherwise appearing to function as
expected."
And another post from the same person[1].
And then there is this snippet from this kernel commit message[2]
"If you share epoll fd which contains our sigfd with another
process you should blame yourself. signalfd is "really
special"."
So add a note to the man page that points this out where people
will hopefully find it sooner rather than later!
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9564975
[1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26701159/sending-signalfd-to-another-process/29751604#29751604
[2]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=d80e731ecab420ddcb79ee9d0ac427acbc187b4b
Signed-off-by: Andrew Clayton <andrew@digital-domain.net>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Eric Biederman noted that my list of directories that could not
have shared propagation was incorrect. I had written that
new_root could not be shared; rather it should be: the parent of
the current root mount point.
Reported-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Quoting Eric Biederman:
The concern from our conversation at the container
mini-summit was that there is a pathology if in your initial
mount namespace all of the mounts are marked MS_SHARED like
systemd does (and is almost necessary if you are going to
use mount propagation), that if new_root itself is MS_SHARED
then unmounting the old_root could propagate.
So I believe the desired sequence is:
>>> chdir(new_root);
+++ mount("", ".", MS_SLAVE | MS_REC, NULL);
>>> pivot_root(".", ".");
>>> umount2(".", MNT_DETACH);
The change to new new_root could be either MS_SLAVE or
MS_PRIVATE. So long as it is not MS_SHARED the mount won't
propagate back to the parent mount namespace.
Reported-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
LXC uses this [1]. I tested, to double-check, and it works.
The fchdir() dance done by LXC is not needed though:
fchdir(old_root); umount(".", MNT_DETACH); fchdir(new_root);
As far as I can see, just the umount() is sufficient, since,
after pivot_root(), oldi_root is at the top of the stack
of mounts at "/" and thus (so long as CWD is at "/")
the umount will remove the mount at the top of the stack.
Eric Biederman confirmed my understanding by mail, and
Philipp Wendler verified my results by experiment.
[1] See the following commit in LXC:
commit 2d489f9e87fa0cccd8a1762680a43eeff2fe1b6e
Author: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>
Date: Sat Sep 20 03:15:44 2014 +0000
pivot_root: switch to a new mechanism (v2)
Helped-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Helped-by: Philipp Wendler <ml@philippwendler.de>
Helped-by: Aleksa Sarai <asarai@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
After around 19 years, the behavior of pivot_root() has not been
changed, and will almost certainly not change in the future.
So, reword to remove the suggestion that the behavior may change.
Also, more clearly document the effect of pivot_root() on
the calling process's current working directory.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
The reference of "Note that this also applies" was vague. So
combine this paragraph with an earlier one to make the linkage
clearer.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
The idea that there might one day be a mechanism for kernel
threads to explicitly relinquish access to the filesystem never
came to pass (after 20 years), and the presence of text
describing this idea is, IMO, a distraction. So, remove it.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
One kernel printk() later, my suspicions seem confirmed: the text
describing the situation where the current root is not a mount
point (because of a chroot()) seems to be bogus. (Perhaps it was
true once upon a time.) In my testing, if the current root is not
a mount point, an EINVAL error results.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
In this text:
If the current root is not a mount point (e.g., after an
earlier chroot(2) or pivot_root())...
mention of pivot_root() makes no sense, since (as noted in an
earlier commit message for this page) 'new_root' in a previous
pivot_root() must (since Linux 2.4.5) have been a mount point.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
One of these "bugs" is a philosophical point already covered
elsewhere in the page, while the other is a somewhat obscure joke.
Both pieces are a bit of a distraction, really.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
The note that EBUSY is given if a filesystem is already mounted
on 'Iput_old' was never really true. That restriction was in
Linux 2.3.14, but removed in Linux 2.3.99-pre6 so it never made
it to mainline.
The relevant diff in pivot_root() was:
error = -EBUSY;
- if (d_new_root->d_sb == root->d_sb || d_put_old->d_sb == root->d_sb)
+ if (new_nd.mnt == root_mnt || old_nd.mnt == root_mnt)
goto out2; /* loop */
- if (d_put_old != d_put_old->d_covers)
- goto out2; /* mount point is busy */
error = -EINVAL;
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Some of the text was written long ago, and hinted that things
might change in the future. However, 20 years have passed
and these details have not changed, so rework the text to
hint at that fact.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
As far as I can see from the source code, the statement that
"No other filesystem may be mounted on 'put_old'" is incorrect.
Even looking at the 2.4.0 source code, there I can't see such
a restriction. In addition, some testing on a 5.0 kernel
(mounting 'put_old' in the new mount namespace just before
pivot_root()) did not result in an error for this case when
calling pivot_root().
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
pivot_root() only affects the current working directory and root
directory of other processes in the same mount namespace as the
caller.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Michael Kerrisk