On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 07:26:50PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 07:33:51AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >
> >
> > On March 20, 2019 3:02:32 AM EDT, Daniel Colascione <dancol@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:59 PM Christian Brauner
> > ><christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 07:42:52PM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> > >> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 6:52 PM Joel Fernandes
> > ><joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:10:23AM +0100, Christian Brauner
> > >wrote:
> > >> > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 03:48:32PM -0700, Daniel Colascione
> > >wrote:
> > >> > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:14 PM Christian Brauner
> > ><christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > So I dislike the idea of allocating new inodes from the
> > >procfs super
> > >> > > > > > block. I would like to avoid pinning the whole pidfd
> > >concept exclusively
> > >> > > > > > to proc. The idea is that the pidfd API will be useable
> > >through procfs
> > >> > > > > > via open("/proc/<pid>") because that is what users expect
> > >and really
> > >> > > > > > wanted to have for a long time. So it makes sense to have
> > >this working.
> > >> > > > > > But it should really be useable without it. That's why
> > >translate_pid()
> > >> > > > > > and pidfd_clone() are on the table. What I'm saying is,
> > >once the pidfd
> > >> > > > > > api is "complete" you should be able to set CONFIG_PROCFS=N
> > >- even
> > >> > > > > > though that's crazy - and still be able to use pidfds. This
> > >is also a
> > >> > > > > > point akpm asked about when I did the pidfd_send_signal
> > >work.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I agree that you shouldn't need CONFIG_PROCFS=Y to use
> > >pidfds. One
> > >> > > > > crazy idea that I was discussing with Joel the other day is
> > >to just
> > >> > > > > make CONFIG_PROCFS=Y mandatory and provide a new
> > >get_procfs_root()
> > >> > > > > system call that returned, out of thin air and independent of
> > >the
> > >> > > > > mount table, a procfs root directory file descriptor for the
> > >caller's
> > >> > > > > PID namspace and suitable for use with openat(2).
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Even if this works I'm pretty sure that Al and a lot of others
> > >will not
> > >> > > > be happy about this. A syscall to get an fd to /proc?
> > >> >
> > >> > Why not? procfs provides access to a lot of core kernel
> > >functionality.
> > >> > Why should you need a mountpoint to get to it?
> > >> >
> > >> > > That's not going
> > >> > > > to happen and I don't see the need for a separate syscall just
> > >for that.
> > >> >
> > >> > We need a system call for the same reason we need a getrandom(2):
> > >you
> > >> > have to bootstrap somehow when you're in a minimal environment.
> > >> >
> > >> > > > (I do see the point of making CONFIG_PROCFS=y the default btw.)
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm not proposing that we make CONFIG_PROCFS=y the default. I'm
> > >> > proposing that we *hardwire* it as the default and just declare
> > >that
> > >> > it's not possible to build a Linux kernel that doesn't include
> > >procfs.
> > >> > Why do we even have that button?
> > >> >
> > >> > > I think his point here was that he wanted a handle to procfs no
> > >matter where
> > >> > > it was mounted and then can later use openat on that. Agreed that
> > >it may be
> > >> > > unnecessary unless there is a usecase for it, and especially if
> > >the /proc
> > >> > > directory being the defacto mountpoint for procfs is a universal
> > >convention.
> > >> >
> > >> > If it's a universal convention and, in practice, everyone needs
> > >proc
> > >> > mounted anyway, so what's the harm in hardwiring CONFIG_PROCFS=y?
> > >If
> > >> > we advertise /proc as not merely some kind of optional debug
> > >interface
> > >> > but *the* way certain kernel features are exposed --- and there's
> > >> > nothing wrong with that --- then we should give programs access to
> > >> > these core kernel features in a way that doesn't depend on
> > >userspace
> > >> > kernel configuration, and you do that by either providing a
> > >> > procfs-root-getting system call or just hardwiring the "/proc/"
> > >prefix
> > >> > into VFS.
> > >> >
> > >> > > > Inode allocation from the procfs mount for the file descriptors
> > >Joel
> > >> > > > wants is not correct. Their not really procfs file descriptors
> > >so this
> > >> > > > is a nack. We can't just hook into proc that way.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I was not particular about using procfs mount for the FDs but
> > >that's the only
> > >> > > way I knew how to do it until you pointed out anon_inode (my grep
> > >skills
> > >> > > missed that), so thank you!
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > > C'mon: /proc is used by everyone today and almost every
> > >program breaks
> > >> > > > > if it's not around. The string "/proc" is already de facto
> > >kernel ABI.
> > >> > > > > Let's just drop the pretense of /proc being optional and bake
> > >it into
> > >> > > > > the kernel proper, then give programs a way to get to /proc
> > >that isn't
> > >> > > > > tied to any particular mount configuration. This way, we
> > >don't need a
> > >> > > > > translate_pid(), since callers can just use procfs to do the
> > >same
> > >> > > > > thing. (That is, if I understand correctly what translate_pid
> > >does.)
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I'm not sure what you think translate_pid() is doing since
> > >you're not
> > >> > > > saying what you think it does.
> > >> > > > Examples from the old patchset:
> > >> > > > translate_pid(pid, ns, -1) - get pid in our pid namespace
> > >> >
> > >> > Ah, it's a bit different from what I had in mind. It's fair to want
> > >to
> > >> > translate PIDs between namespaces, but the only way to make the
> > >> > translate_pid under discussion robust is to have it accept and
> > >produce
> > >> > pidfds. (At that point, you might as well call it translate_pidfd.)
> > >We
> > >> > should not be adding new APIs to the kernel that accept numeric
> > >PIDs:
> > >>
> > >> The traditional pid-based api is not going away. There are users that
> > >> have the requirement to translate pids between namespaces and also
> > >doing
> > >> introspection on these namespaces independent of pidfds. We will not
> > >> restrict the usefulness of this syscall by making it only work with
> > >> pidfds.
> > >>
> > >> > it's not possible to use these APIs correctly except under very
> > >> > limited circumstances --- mostly, talking about init or a parent
> > >>
> > >> The pid-based api is one of the most widely used apis of the kernel
> > >and
> > >> people have been using it quite successfully for a long time. Yes,
> > >it's
> > >> rac, but it's here to stay.
> > >>
> > >> > talking about its child.
> > >> >
> > >> > Really, we need a few related operations, and we shouldn't
> > >necessarily
> > >> > mingle them.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, we've established that previously.
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > 1) Given a numeric PID, give me a pidfd: that works today: you just
> > >> > open /proc/<pid>
> > >>
> > >> Agreed.
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > 2) Given a pidfd, give me a numeric PID: that works today: you just
> > >> > openat(pidfd, "stat", O_RDONLY) and read the first token (which is
> > >> > always the numeric PID).
> > >>
> > >> Agreed.
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > 3) Given a pidfd, send a signal: that's what pidfd_send_signal
> > >does,
> > >> > and it's a good start on the rest of these operations.
> > >>
> > >> Agreed.
> > >>
> > >> > 5) Given a pidfd in NS1, get a pidfd in NS2. That's what
> > >translate_pid
> > >> > is for. My preferred signature for this routine is
> > >translate_pid(int
> > >> > pidfd, int nsfd) -> pidfd. We don't need two namespace arguments.
> > >Why
> > >> > not? Because the pidfd *already* names a single process, uniquely!
> > >>
> > >> Given that people are interested in pids we can't just always return
> > >a
> > >> pidfd. That would mean a user would need to do get the pidfd read
> > >from
> > >> <pidfd>/stat and then close the pidfd. If you do that for a 100 pids
> > >or
> > >> more you end up allocating and closing file descriptors constantly
> > >for
> > >> no reason. We can't just debate pids away. So it will also need to be
> > >> able to yield pids e.g. through a flag argument.
> > >
> > >Sure, but that's still not a reason that we should care about pidfds
> > >working separately from procfs..
>
> That's unrelated to the point made in the above paragraph.
> Please note, I said that the pidfd api should work when proc is not
> available not that they can't be dirfds.
>
> >
> > Agreed. I can't imagine pidfd being anything but a proc pid directory handle. So I am confused what Christian meant. Pidfd *is* a procfs directory fid always. That's what I gathered from his pidfd_send_signal patch but let me know if I'm way off in the woods.
>
> (K9 Mail still hasn't learned to wrap lines at 80 it seems. :))
Indeed, or I misconfigured it :) Just set it up recently so I'm still messing
with it.
The other issue is it does wrapping on quoted lines too, and there's a bug
filed somewhere for that.
> Again, I never said that pidfds should be a directory handle.
> (Though I would like to point out that one of the original ideas I
> discussed at LPC was to have something like this to get regular file
> descriptors instead of dirfds:
> https://gist.github.com/brauner/59eec91550c5624c9999eaebd95a70df)
Ok. I was just going by this code in your send_signal patch where you error
out if the pidfd is not a directory.
+struct pid *tgid_pidfd_to_pid(const struct file *file)
+{
+ if (!d_is_dir(file->f_path.dentry) ||
+ (file->f_op != &proc_tgid_base_operations))
+ return ERR_PTR(-EBADF);
> > For my next revision, I am thinking of adding the flag argument Christian mentioned to make translate_pid return an anon_inode FD which can be used for death status, given a <pid>. Since it is thought that translate_pid can be made to return a pid FD, I think it is ok to have it return a pid status FD for the purposes of the death status as well.
>
> translate_pid() should just return you a pidfd. Having it return a pidfd
> and a status fd feels like stuffing too much functionality in there. If
> you're fine with it I'll finish prototyping what I had in mind. As I
> said in previous mails I'm already working on this.
Yes, please continue to work on it. No problem.
> Would you be ok with prototyping the pidfd_wait() syscall you had in
> mind?
Yes, Of course, I am working on it. No problem. It is still good to discuss
these ideas and to know what my direction should be, so I appreciate the
conversation here.
> Especially the wait_fd part that you want to have I would like to
> see how that is supposed to work, e.g. who is allowed to wait on the
> process and how notifications will work for non-parent processes and so
> on. I feel we won't get anywhere by talking in the abstrace and other
> people are far more likely to review/comment once there's actual code.
Got it. Lets chat more once I post something.
thanks,
- Joel
