Make the page more compact by removing the stub subsections that
list the manual pages for the namespace types. And while we're
here, add an explanation of the table columns.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Eric Biederman:
I hate to nitpick, but I am going to say that when I read
the text above the phrase "mount namespace of the process
that created the new mount namespace" feels wrong.
Either you use unshare(2) and the mount namespace of the
process that created the mount namespace changes.
Or you use clone(2) and you could argue it is the new child
that created the mount namespace.
Having a different mount namespace at the end of the
creation operation feels like it makes your phrase confusing
about what the starting mount namespace is. I hate to use
references that are ambiguous when things are changing.
Reported-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Provide a more detailed explanation of the initialization of
the mount point list in a new mount namespace.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Reid noted a confusion between 'old_root' (my attempt at a
shorthand for the old root point) and 'put_old. Eliminate the
confusion by replacing the shorthand with "old root mount point".
Reported-by: Reid Priedhorsky <reidpr@lanl.gov>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
The current text talks about "parent mount namespaces", but there
is no such concept. As confirmed by Eric Biederman, what is mean
here is "the mount namespace this mount namespace started as a
copy of". So, this change writes up Eric's description in a more
detailed way.
Reported-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Eric Biederman notes that the change in commit f646ac88ef was
not strictly necessary for this example, since one of the already
documented requirements is that various mount points must not have
shared propagation, or else pivot_root() will fail. So, simplify
the example.
Reported-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
After creating a new mount namespace, it may be desirable to
disable mount propagation. Give the reader a more explicit
hint about this.
Reported-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
In a recent conversation with Mathieu Desnoyers I was reminded
that we haven't written up anything about how deferred
cancellation and asynchronous signal handlers interact. Mathieu
ran into some of this behaviour and I promised to improve the
documentation in this area to point out the potential pitfall.
Thoughts?
8< --- 8< --- 8<
In pthread_setcancelstate.3, pthreads.7, and signal-safety.7 we
describe that if you have an asynchronous signal nesting over a
deferred cancellation region that any cancellation point in the
signal handler may trigger a cancellation that will behave
as-if it was an asynchronous cancellation. This asynchronous
cancellation may have unexpected effects on the consistency of
the application. Therefore care should be taken with asynchronous
signals and deferred cancellation.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
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>
Michael Kerrisk