linux-kernel - Re: epoll design problems with common fork/exec patterns

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <cfd18e0f0802291154j612b4238i66cb8323b72814ca@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:54:53 +0100
From:	"Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>
To:	"Davide Libenzi" <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc:	"Chris \"¥¯\" Heath" <chris@...thens.co.nz>,
	"David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com>, dada1@...mosbay.com,
	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-man@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: epoll design problems with common fork/exec patterns

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>
> > As I think is clear, I've only given it very limited thought ;-).
> >
> > The point is that the existing implementation actually supports
> > "different *processes* sharing a single epoll fd and doing
> > epoll_wait() over it", but the semantics are unintuitive.  It may be
> > that the existing implementation was the best way of doing things.
> > But when I see the strange corner cases in the semantics, I can't help
> > but wonder (way too late), whether there might have been some other
> > way of implementing things that led to more intuitive semantics.
>
> Oh boy. The fact that you can have an epoll fd cross the fork boundary,
> does not mean that any indiscriminate use of it leads to sane results:

I ddidn't mean that it did.  Certainly in the current implementation
it there will insane situations ;-).

>        efd = epoll_create();
>        fork();
>                                        pipe(fds);
>                                        epoll_ctl(efd, ADD, fds[0]);
>        epoll_wait(); ????
>        ...
>        pipe(fds);
>        epoll_ctl(efd, ADD, fds[0]);
>                                        epoll_wait(); ????
>
>
> It is *NOT* a matter of semantics.

Of course -- but I don't think I suggested that I disagree on this.

> > >  If the next question is "But then why we made the epoll fd inheritable?",
> > >  the answer is, because it makes sense in many cases for a parent to hand
> > >  over an fd set to a child.
> >
> > Fair enough.
> >
> > So here's an idea about how things might alternatively have been done:
> >
> > a) The key for epoll entries could have been [file *, fd, PID]
> >
> > b) an epoll_wait() only returns events for fds where the PID maps that
> > of the caller.
> >
> > c) a close of a file descriptor removes the corresponding  [file *,
> > fd, PID] from the epoll set.
> >
> > d) when a fork() is done, then the epoll set has a new set of keys
> > added.  These are duplicates of the  [file *, fd, PID] entries for the
> > parent, but with the PID of the child substituted into the new keys.
> > Say the parent had PID 1000, and the child has PID 2000.  If the epoll
> > set initially contained:
> >
> > [X, 3, 1000]
> > [Y, 4, 1000]
> >
> > then after fork() we'd have:
> >
> > [X, 3, 1000]
> > [Y, 4, 1000]
> > [X, 3, 2000]
> > [Y, 4, 2000]
> >
> > There is of course room for debate about the efficiency of this
> > approach, I suppose.
>
> There sure is :)

Okay -- but I suspect it could have been made fairly efficient.

> > You said elsewhere:
> >
> > [[
> > That'd mean placing an eventpoll custom hook into sys_close(). Looks very
> > bad to me, and probably will look even worse to other kernel folks.
> > Is not much a performance issue (a check to see if a file* is an eventpoll
> > file is as easy as comparing the f_op pointer), but a design/style issue.
> > ]]
> >
> > But that wasn't very clear to me actually.  I note that filp_close()
> > already has special case handling for dnotify (R.I.P.) and fcntl()
> > )aka POSIX) file locks, so there was already precedent for a custom
> > hook, AFAICS, and epoll is at least as worthy of special treatment as
> > either of those cases.
>
> I guess that over the time, Al became software WRT junk going there :)

Sorry -- I don't understand that last sentence?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/