On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, Lukasz Pawelczyk wrote: > On śro, 2014-11-26 at 13:32 -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Nov 2014, Lukasz Pawelczyk wrote: > > > > > > LSM task_kill() hook is triggered and current->nsproxy within is NULL. > > > > > > This happens during an exit() syscall because exit_task_namespaces() is > > > called before the exit_notify(). This patch changes their order. > > > > > > > This is a classic case of a patch being proposed for a problem that only > > occurs on kernels that include other patches that are not upstream. The > > order that things are deconstructed in the exit path is complex and > > carefully choreographed, changing it comes at significant risk. That risk > > would be justified if a patch were being proposed for upstream that fixes > > an upstream problem. It becomes too much of a maintenance nightmare to > > try to address problems and keep issues from arising for non-upstream > > patches. Thus, I don't think this is something that we want. > > This is a problem for the change I'm working on and I will be > upstreaming it too at some point. Please see my other reply for more > details: > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg1877152.html > > The only thing I can do then is to post this patch together with the > other patches when the time comes. But since this issue is rather > separate I've decided to try to push it earlier. >
Yeah, it would be best to fold this into a series that needs current->nsproxy to be valid at a sequence point in the exit path as part of the same patch that requires it.
