On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 16:05 +0100, Stanislav Kinsburskiy wrote: > > 08.01.2016 13:58, Ian Kent пишет: > > On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 12:29 +0100, Stanislav Kinsburskiy wrote: > > > 08.01.2016 08:20, Ian Kent пишет: > > > > On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 16:46 +0100, Stanislav Kinsburskiy wrote: > > > > > Good day, gentlemen. > > > > > > > > > > Could you update, what's the status with this patch? > > > > > Without it it's impossible to match process pipe with kernel > > > > > pipe, > > > > > while > > > > > this is "must have" to be able to migrate AutoFS via CRIU. > > > > Right, I did mean to reply to this mail but have been > > > > distracted by > > > > family stuff. > > > > > > > > I don't know what CRIU is and people looking at changelog > > > > entries > > > > shouldn't need to do a web search to find out. > > > > > > > > Could you change it a little. > > > Fair enough. I'll resend with more descriptive message. > > > But first I would like to clarify to you the problem root and why > > > it's > > > done like this. > > > > > > > I'm also not sure whether to forward this (assuming the > > > > description > > > > is > > > > updated a little) to Al or to include it in the series to > > > > rename > > > > autofs4 to autofs that I'm hoping to ask be included in linux > > > > -next > > > > fairly soon. > > > Here I don't know, what's better. Of course Al can take it as > > > well. > > > But, > > > probably, first would be nice to make sure, that this solution is > > > the > > > best one. > > > Description of the problem is below. > > > > > > > Passing it on to Al will likely interfere with the series > > > > coming > > > > from > > > > linux-next so that could be bit of a hassle. > > > > > > > > Another thing I'm wondering about is the order this entry will > > > > appear > > > > at in the options. You order choice is sensible though and > > > > autofs > > > > shouldn't have a problem with the inserted option but other > > > > applications might. > > > I should put it at the end, probably? > > > > > > > Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I don't get what your > > > > trying > > > > to > > > > do, you also haven't given any clues to that in the patch > > > > dscription. > > > > > > > > IOW how do you expect to use this. > > > > > > > > > 16.12.2015 13:02, Stanislav Kinsburskiy пишет: > > > > > > This is required for CRIU to migrate a mount point, when > > > > > > write > > > > > > end > > > > > > in user > > > > > > space is closed. > > > > Like I said what does this mean. > > > > > > > > autofs doesn't need this when it re-constructs a mount tree > > > > from > > > > existing mounts on re-start or after a SIGKILL on the automount > > > > process. > > > > > > > > How is this different and how will it be used? > > > > > > > > The question to be answered here is "is this the best way to do > > > > it > > > > and > > > > will it work for the autofs mount types you expect it to"? > > > So, here is a brief description of the problem. > > > To migrate autofs mount, one have to reconstruct control pipe > > > between > > > kernel and autofs master. > > > There are two cases I'm wiling to support: > > > 1) Automount binary (autofs package). This program is very gentle > > > and > > > it > > > doesn't close write end of the pipe after mount. > > > 2) Systemd. This program closes write end of the pipe once the > > > mount > > > is > > > done. > > I must admit I'm having trouble understanding the description. > > Give me a little time with it. > > > > I don't know how systemd works with autofs mounts only that it uses > > the > > autofs direct mount type. > > Systemd closes write end of the pipe after mount. > > > autofs uses both indirect and direct mounts and both can have > > offsets > > (from the kernel POV semantically direct mounts). So there is quite > > a > > bit to worry about beside the kernel pipe. > > It's not about direct or indirects mounts. > It's about process state restore. > With CRIU migration, any task is frozen, then disassembled into > pieces > (dump files), which are used to assemble task exactly in the same > state > in was before dump. > The technology is very complex and uses a lot a different tricky > techniques to make this possible in userspace to describe all the > details here. > > But below is a bit more information, which, hopefully, will clarify > all > this a little bit more. > One of a process attributed to migrate is "opened files". Pipes also > belong to this attribute. > > To restore a pipe CRIU does the following (a very simplified > description): > 1) Creates a new pipe. > 2) Writes (previously stores in images) its contents via write end. > 3) Duplicate pipe descriptors to the fds of the process, which were > used > before dump, if required > 4) Send pipe descriptors to other processes, sharing it, via unix > socket. > 5) Close those pipe descriptors, which are not required (say, this > process had only read end, while it's child had write end). > > Thus in case of restoring and autofs mount of systemd (which, for > example, closed write end and has read end on fd 40), one have to > create > a pipe (say, appeared with fd 5 and fd 6), fill it with content via > fd > 6, duplicate fd 5 into fd 40, call mount with pipe fd 6 and then > close fd 6. > This is, yet again, a very simple explanation. Right, as said initially (more or less), if you need the patch you posted then it shouldn't cause a problem so it should be ok. Al hasn't responded so I guess that means I should go the linux-next path possibly via pull request for the series I have to rename autofs4 to autofs (along with this one, to prevent merge conflicts). I haven't asked Steven about this yet so I'm not sure if a pull request is even the right thing to do. There is another case I was wondering about. That's when there is a direct mount that is covered by a real mount. autofs will have a file handle open to it (on the underlying mount point path) to use for control purposes like expires. I think you also need to restore those file handles to restore process state and in this case the mount point is covered. > > > Anyway, it seems your only concern is the kernel pipe and I wonder > > why > > you can't just set the mount catatonic (in autofs speak) on save > > and > > open a new kernel pipe then set the pipefd on the autofs mount on > > restore. > > I can't because of a bunch of reasons: > 1) It can be migration, thus I don't have autofs mount on destination > node at all > 2) It can be a container, which is stopped after dump (thus mount > point > is destroyed). > > > But probably my suggestion is far to simplistic as I get the > > impression > > you have a process already in a given state which you want to > > restore. > > > > One thing to keep in mind is that if an autofs mount is not set > > catatonic any access other than the owner process (process group > > pid) > > will hang unless there is an actual user space process to service > > the > > callback. > > > > Although I don't know the flow of things that might be important at > > some point. > > > > And if the mount is set catatonic the process needs to set the > > pipefd > > to take "ownership" which also clears the mount catatonic flag. > > The migration is already implemented and sent to CRIU mailing list. > Here is the list, if you are interesting (I use kernel with this > patch > applied): > https://lists.openvz.org/pipermail/criu/2016-January/024749.html ok, I'll try and have a look although I'm pressed for time so I'm not sure I'll spend much time on it. In any case the project needs to do what it thinks best so my only real concern is to try and alert you to possible problems. > > > Anyway, let me think about what you've written for a while. > > Ian > > Sure, take your time. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in
