Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add pidfd support to the fanotify API

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:47:46AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sat 22-05-21 09:32:36, Matthew Bobrowski wrote:
> > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:40:56PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Fri 21-05-21 20:15:35, Matthew Bobrowski wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 03:55:27PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > There's one thing that I'd like to mention, and it's something in
> > > > regards to the overall approach we've taken that I'm not particularly
> > > > happy about and I'd like to hear all your thoughts. Basically, with
> > > > this approach the pidfd creation is done only once an event has been
> > > > queued and the notification worker wakes up and picks up the event
> > > > from the queue processes it. There's a subtle latency introduced when
> > > > taking such an approach which at times leads to pidfd creation
> > > > failures. As in, by the time pidfd_create() is called the struct pid
> > > > has already been reaped, which then results in FAN_NOPIDFD being
> > > > returned in the pidfd info record.
> > > > 
> > > > Having said that, I'm wondering what the thoughts are on doing pidfd
> > > > creation earlier on i.e. in the event allocation stages? This way, the
> > > > struct pid is pinned earlier on and rather than FAN_NOPIDFD being
> > > > returned in the pidfd info record because the struct pid has been
> > > > already reaped, userspace application will atleast receive a valid
> > > > pidfd which can be used to check whether the process still exists or
> > > > not. I think it'll just set the expectation better from an API
> > > > perspective.
> > > 
> > > Yes, there's this race. OTOH if FAN_NOPIDFD is returned, the listener can
> > > be sure the original process doesn't exist anymore. So is it useful to
> > > still receive pidfd of the dead process?
> > 
> > Well, you're absolutely right. However, FWIW I was approaching this
> > from two different angles:
> > 
> > 1) I wanted to keep the pattern in which the listener checks for the
> >    existence/recycling of the process consistent. As in, the listener
> >    would receive the pidfd, then send the pidfd a signal via
> >    pidfd_send_signal() and check for -ESRCH which clearly indicates
> >    that the target process has terminated.
> > 
> > 2) I didn't want to mask failed pidfd creation because of early
> >    process termination and other possible failures behind a single
> >    FAN_NOPIDFD. IOW, if we take the -ESRCH approach above, the
> >    listener can take clear corrective branches as what's to be done
> >    next if a race is to have been detected, whereas simply returning
> >    FAN_NOPIDFD at this stage can mean multiple things.
> > 
> > Now that I've written the above and keeping in mind that we'd like to
> > refrain from doing anything in the event allocation stages, perhaps we
> > could introduce a different error code for detecting early process
> > termination while attempting to construct the info record. WDYT?
> 
> Sure, I wouldn't like to overengineer it but having one special fd value for
> "process doesn't exist anymore" and another for general "creating pidfd
> failed" looks OK to me.

FAN_EPIDFD -> "creation failed"
FAN_NOPIDFD -> "no such process"

?

Christian



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux