On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 01:08:25PM +0000, Sargun Dhillon wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 07:41:05AM -0500, Tycho Andersen wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 06:20:09PM -0500, Tycho Andersen wrote: > > > Idea 1 sounds best to me, but maybe that's because it's the way I > > > originally did the fd support that never landed :) > > > > > > But here's an Idea 4: we add a way to remotely close an fd (I don't > > > see that the current infra can do this, but perhaps I didn't look hard > > > enough), and then when you get ENOENT you have to close the fd. Of > > > course, this can't be via seccomp, so maybe it's even more racy. > > > > Or better yet: what if the kernel closed everything it had added via > > ADDFD if it didn't get a valid response from the supervisor? Then > > everyone gets this bug fixed for free. > > > > Tycho > > _______________________________________________ > > Containers mailing list > > Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers > > This doesn't solve the problem universally because of the (Go) preemption > problem. Unless we can guarantee that the supervisor can always handle the > request in fewer than 10ms, or if it implements resumption behaviour. I know > that resumption behaviour is a requirement no matter what, but the easier we can > make it to implement resumption, the better chance we are giving users to get > this right. Doesn't automatic cleanup of fds make things easier? I'm not sure I understand the argument. I agree it doesn't fix the problem of uncooperative userspace. Tycho _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
