Quoting Pavel Machek (pavel@xxxxxx): > > > > > > > An alternative to this solution consists in defining a new field in the > > > > > > task structure (let's call it next_syscall_data) that, if set, would change > > > > > > the behavior of next syscall to be called. The sys_fork_with_id() previously > > > > > > cited can be replaced by > > > > > > 1) set next_syscall_data to a target upid nr > > > > > > 2) call fork(). > > > > > > > > > > ...bloat task struct and > > > > > > > > > > > A new file is created in procfs: /proc/self/task/<my_tid>/next_syscall_data. > > > > > > This makes it possible to avoid races between several threads belonging to > > > > > > the same process. > > > > > > > > > > ...introducing this kind of uglyness. > > > > > > > > > > Actually, there were proposals for sys_indirect(), which is slightly > > > > > less ugly, but IIRC we ended up with adding syscalls, too. > > > > > > > > Silly question... > > > > > > > > Oren, would you object to defining sys_fork_with_id(), > > > > sys_msgget_with_id(), and sys_semget_with_id()? > > > > > > > > Eric, Pavel (Emelyanov), Dave, do you have preferences? > > > > > > > > For the cases Nadia has implemented here I'd be tempted to side with > > > > Pavel Machek, but once we get to things like open() and socket(), (a) > > > > the # new syscalls starts to jump, and (b) the per-syscall api starts to > > > > seem a lot more cumbersome. > > > > > > You should not need to modify open/socket. You can already select fd > > > by creatively using open/dup/close... > > > > That's what we do right now in cryo. And if we end up patching up every > > API with separate syscalls, then we wouldn't create open_with_id(). But > > so long as the next_id were to exist, exploiting it in open is nigh on > > trivial and much nicer. > > Ok, so ignore previous email. You know how unix works. > > I believe you should just introduce syscalls you need. Yes, > introducing new syscalls is hard/expensive, but changing existing > syscalls is simply bad idea. Ok, thanks, Pavel. I'm really far more inclined to agree with you than it probably sounds like. I'll go ahead and implement a clone_with_id() syscall for starters later this week just as a comparison. Unless, Nadia, you have already started that? > So what new syscalls do you _really_ need? Not open_this_fd, nor > socket_this_fd. Oren, do you have a list of the syscalls which were modified to use the next_id in zap? -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers