On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 05:42:46PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 5:24 PM Christian Brauner > <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 02:28:15PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > On Mon 03-05-21 21:44:22, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > > > Getting back to this old thread, because the "fs view" concept that > > > > > > it presented is very close to two POCs I tried out recently which leverage > > > > > > the availability of mnt_userns in most of the call sites for fsnotify hooks. > > > > > > > > > > > > The first POC was replacing the is_subtree() check with in_userns() > > > > > > which is far less expensive: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commits/fanotify_in_userns > > > > > > > > > > > > This approach reduces the cost of check per mark, but there could > > > > > > still be a significant number of sb marks to iterate for every fs op > > > > > > in every container. > > > > > > > > > > > > The second POC is based off the first POC but takes the reverse > > > > > > approach - instead of marking the sb object and filtering by userns, > > > > > > it places a mark on the userns object and filters by sb: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commits/fanotify_idmapped > > > > > > > > > > > > The common use case is a single host filesystem which is > > > > > > idmapped via individual userns objects to many containers, > > > > > > so normally, fs operations inside containers would have to > > > > > > iterate a single mark. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am well aware of your comments about trying to implement full > > > > > > blown subtree marks (up this very thread), but the userns-sb > > > > > > join approach is so much more low hanging than full blown > > > > > > subtree marks. And as a by-product, it very naturally provides > > > > > > the correct capability checks so users inside containers are > > > > > > able to "watch their world". > > > > > > > > > > > > Patches to allow resolving file handles inside userns with the > > > > > > needed permission checks are also available on the POC branch, > > > > > > which makes the solution a lot more useful. > > > > > > > > > > > > In that last POC, I introduced an explicit uapi flag > > > > > > FAN_MARK_IDMAPPED in combination with > > > > > > FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM it provides the new capability. > > > > > > This is equivalent to a new mark type, it was just an aesthetic > > > > > > decision. > > > > > > > > > > So in principle, I have no problem with allowing mount marks for ns-capable > > > > > processes. Also FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM marks filtered by originating namespace > > > > > look OK to me (although if we extended mount marks to support directory > > > > > events as you try elsewhere, would there be still be a compeling usecase for > > > > > this?). > > > > > > > > In my opinion it would. This is the reason why I stopped that direction. > > > > The difference between FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM|FAN_MARK_IDMAPPED > > > > and FAN_MARK_MOUNT is that the latter can be easily "escaped" by creating > > > > a bind mount or cloning a mount ns while the former is "sticky" to all additions > > > > to the mount tree that happen below the idmapped mount. > > > > > > As far as I understood Christian, he was specifically interested in mount > > > events for container runtimes because filtering by 'mount' was desirable > > > for his usecase. But maybe I misunderstood. Christian? Also if you have > > > > I discussed this with Amir about two weeks ago. For container runtimes > > Amir's idea of generating events based on the userns the fsnotify > > instance was created in is actually quite clever because it gives a way > > for the container to receive events for all filesystems and idmapped > > mounts if its userns is attached to it. The model as we discussed it - > > Amir, please tell me if I'm wrong - is that you'd be setting up an > > fsnotify watch in a given userns and you'd be seeing events from all > > superblocks that have the caller's userns as s_user_ns and all mounts > > that have the caller's userns as mnt_userns. I think that's safe. > > Not sure if we want to get events from all the fs mounted in this userns. > We do not want events from proc/sys/debug fs which are mounted inside > the usersn. > > My POC does not implement a watch for ALL fs in userns, it implements > only a filtered watch by userns-sb pair. Right, that was me being sloopy. What I meant was "all marked filesystems". > > > > > The reason why I found mount marks to be so compelling initially was > > that they also work in cases where the caller is not in the userns that > > is attached to the mnt (Similar to how you don't need to be in the > > s_user_ns of the superblock you attached a filesystem mark to.). > > That's not per se a container use-case though as the container will > > almost always be in the userns that is attached to the mount (They don't > > have to be of course just as with s_usern_s. You can very well be clever > > and make a superblock be visible outside of the mounter's userns.). > > > > In addition the mount mark seemed to offer more granularity as the > > caller can specifically select what they want to monitor. But I don't > > think that justifies the complexity of the implementation that we would > > need to push for. > > > > > FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM mark filtered by namespace, you still will not see > > > events to your shared filesystem generated from another namespace. So > > > "escaping" is just a matter of creating new namespace and mounting fs > > > there? > > > > Hm, that depends on the implementation. If Amir is using in_userns() > > then the caller would be seeing events for their own userns and all > > descendant userns. Since userns are hierarchical a container creating a > > new userns wouldn't be able to "escape" the notifications. > > > > Not seeing events generated from another userns idmapped mount is a feature. Sure, it's just depends on the implementation. :) I agree with you. > FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM gets events generated on fs from anywhere. > FAN_MARK_MOUNT gets events generated on fs only via a specific mount. > The idmapped fs mark is in between - get all events on fs via any mount inside > a specific container (and all its descendants). > > Escaping is not possible from within the container. In order to generate events > that are not via a mount that is idmapped to the container userns, the > host would > need to provide access to a non-idmapped mount into the container and that > would be a container management problem, not an fsnotify problem. > > Christian, please correct me if I am wrong. Yep, totally correct. Christian
