linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/2v6] procfs: show hierarchy of pid namespace

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <5871495633F38949900D2BF2DC04883E61F2B2@G08CNEXMBPEKD02.g08.fujitsu.local>
Date:	Thu, 6 Nov 2014 05:48:09 +0000
From:	"Chen, Hanxiao" <chenhanxiao@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
CC:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
	<containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@...hat.com>,
	"David Howells" <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2v6] procfs: show hierarchy of pid namespace



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Weinberger [mailto:richard@....at]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 8:52 PM
> To: Serge E. Hallyn
> Cc: Chen, Hanxiao/陈 晗霄; Eric W. Biederman; Serge Hallyn; Oleg Nesterov;
> containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Mateusz
> Guzik; David Howells
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2v6] procfs: show hierarchy of pid namespace
> 
> Am 05.11.2014 um 13:41 schrieb Serge E. Hallyn:
> > Quoting Richard Weinberger (richard@....at):
> >> Am 05.11.2014 um 11:41 schrieb Chen Hanxiao:
> >>> We lack of pid hierarchy information, and this will lead to:
> >>> a) we don't know pids' relationship, who is whose child:
> >>>    /proc/PID/ns/pid only tell us whether two pids live in different ns
> >>> b) bring trouble to nested lxc container check/restore/migration
> >>> c) bring trouble to pid translation between containers;
> >>>
> >>> This patch will show the hierarchy of pid namespace
> >>> by pidns_hierarchy like:
> >>>
> >>> [root@...alhost ~]#cat /proc/pidns_hierarchy
> >>> 18060 18102 1534
> >>> 18060 18102 1600
> >>> 1550
> >>
> >> Hmm, what about printing the pid hierarchy in the same way as
> /proc/self/mountinfo
> >> does with mount namespaces?
> >> Your current approach is not bad but we should really try to be consistent
> with existing
> >> sources of information.
> >
> > Good point.  How would you structure it to make it look mor elike mountinfo?
> > Adding the pidns inode number (in place of a mount sequence number) might be
> > useful, but it sounds like you have a more concrete idea?
> 
> Just list <init_PID> <parent_of_init_PID>. This way we have exactly one
> information record per line and always exactly two columns to parse.
> 
> e.g.
> [root@...alhost ~]#cat /proc/pidns_hierarchy
> 1550 1
> 18060 1
> 18102 18060
> 1534 18102
> 1600 18102
> 
But this style lacks of *level* information:
Ex:
1->18060->18102->1600->1700
If we want to check the 1700's level in pid ns
Style 1:
18060 18102 1600 1700

Style 2:
18060 1
18102 18060
1600 18102
1700 1600

If we had a little more containers,
Style 2 would not be clear enough.
1 line vs $(PID level) line

If there were no more related information to show,
I think style 1 looks better.

Thanks,
- Chen

> >> This function allocates memory per PID. If we have lots of PIDs, how does this
> scale?
> >> I'd go so far and say this can be a DoS'able issue if the pidns_hierarchy file
> is opened multiple times...
> >
> > It's not per pid, but per init-pid.  For non-reaper pids he bails and continue
> > through the loop a few lines above.  This still may be DOS-able if users don't
> > have kmem restrictions to prevent a ton of pid namespaces, but then the
> > namespaces themselves will take a lot more memory than the representation here.
> 
> Ah, I've overlooked that fact. If it is per init-pid it is not that bad. :-)
> 
> Thanks,
> //richard