Message-ID: <87bnlalo7k.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date:	Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:44:31 -0600
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	"Michael Kerrisk \(man-pages\)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fork: report pid reservation failure properly

Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> writes:

> On Tue 03-02-15 16:33:03, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>> Hi Michal,
>> 
>> 
>> On 3 February 2015 at 16:05, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > while debugging an unexpected ENOMEM from fork (there was no memory
>> > pressure and OVERCOMMIT_ALWAYS) I have found out that fork returns
>> > ENOMEM even when not short on memory.
>> >
>> > In this particular case it was due to depleted pid space which is
>> > documented to return EAGAIN in man pages.
>> >
>> > Here is a quick fix up.
>> 
>> Could you summarize briefly what the user-space visible change is
>> here?
>
> The user visible change is that the userspace will get EAGAIN when
> calling fork and the pid space is depleted because of a system wide
> limit as per man page description rather than ENOMEM which we return
> currently.

I don't think that EAGAIN is any better than ENOMEM,
nor do I know that it is safe to return EBUSY from fork.  What nonsense
will applications do when they see an unexpected error code.

>> It is not so obvious from your message. I believe you're turning
>> some cases of ENOMEM into EAGAIN, right?
>
> Yes, except for the case mentioned below which discusses a potential
> error code for pid namespace triggered failures.
>
>> Note, by the way, that if I understandwhat you intend, this change
>> would bring the implementation closer to POSIX, which specifies:
>
> True.
>
> HTH.
>
>>        EAGAIN The  system  lacked  the  necessary  resources  to  create
>>               another  process, or the system-imposed limit on the total
>>               number of processes under execution system-wide  or  by  a
>>               single user {CHILD_MAX} would be exceeded.
>> 

Note.  All of those documented errors documented to return EAGAIN
are the kind of errors that if you wait a while you can reasonably
expect fork to succeed later.

With respecting to dealing with errors from fork, fork
is a major pain.  Fork only has only two return codes documented,
and fork is one of the most complicated system calls in the kernel with
the most failure modes of any system call I am familiar with.  Mapping 
a plethora of failure modes onto two error codes is always going to be
problematic from some view point.

EAGAIN is a bad idea in general because that means try again and if you
have hit a fixed limit trying again is wrong.

Frankly I think posix is probably borked to recommend EAGAIN instead of
ENOMEM.

Everyone in the world uses fork which makes is quite tricky to figure
out which assumptions on the return values of fork exist in the wild,
so it is not clear if it is safe to add new more descriptive return
messages.

With respect to the case where PIDNS_HASH_ADDING would cause fork to
fail, that only happens after init has exited in a pid namespace, so it
is very much a permanent failure, and there are no longer any processes
in the specific pid namespace nor will there ever be any more processes
in that pid namespace.  EINVAL might actually makes sense.  Of course
a sensible error code from fork does not seem to be allowed.

Of the two return codes that are allowed for fork, EAGAIN and ENOMEM
ENOMEM seems to be better as it is a more permanement failure.

I agree it is a little confusing, but I don't see anything that is other
than a little confusing.

Other than someone doing:

unshare(CLONE_NEWPID);
pid = fork();
waitpid(pid);
fork();   /* returns ENOMEM */

Was there any other real world issue that started this goal to fix fork?

I think there is a reasonable argument for digging into the fork return
code situation.  Perhaps it is just a matter of returning exotic return
codes for the weird and strange cases like trying to create a pid in a
dead pid namespace.

But what we have works, and I don't know of anything bad that happens
except when people are developing new code they get confused.

Further we can't count on people to read their man pages because this
behavior of returning ENOMEM is documented in pid_namespaces(7).  Which
makes me really thinking changing the code to match the manpage is more
likely to break code than to fix code.

Eric

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists