linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/3] procfs: fdinfo -- Extend information about epoll target files

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170317082620.GA29364@uranus.lan>
Date:   Fri, 17 Mar 2017 11:26:20 +0300
From:   Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:     Andrei Vagin <avagin@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        akpm@...uxfoundation.org, xemul@...tuozzo.com,
        mtk.manpages@...il.com, kir@...nvz.org,
        Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] procfs: fdinfo -- Extend information about epoll
 target files

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 09:59:09PM -0700, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:16:56AM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > Since it is possbile to have same number in tfd field (say
> > file added, closed, then nother file dup'ed to same number
> > and added back) it is imposible to distinguish such target
> > files solely by their numbers.
> > 
> > Strictly speaking regular applications don't need to recognize
> > these targets at all but for checkpoint/restore sake we need
> > to collect targets to be able to push them back on restore
> > stage in a proper order.
> > 
> > Thus lets add file position, inode and device number where
> > this target lays. This three fields can be used as a primary
> > key for sorting, and together with kcmp help CRIU can find
> > out an exact file target (from the whole set of processes
> > being checkpointed).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
> > CC: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...uxfoundation.org>
> > CC: Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>
> > CC: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>
> > CC: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
> > CC: Kir Kolyshkin <kir@...nvz.org>
> > CC: Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
> > CC: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt |    6 +++++-
> >  fs/eventpoll.c                     |    8 ++++++--
> >  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Index: linux-ml.git/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-ml.git.orig/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt
> > +++ linux-ml.git/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt
> > @@ -1779,12 +1779,16 @@ pair provide additional information part
> >  	pos:	0
> >  	flags:	02
> >  	mnt_id:	9
> > -	tfd:        5 events:       1d data: ffffffffffffffff
> > +	tfd:        5 events:       1d data: ffffffffffffffff pos:0 ino:61af sdev:7
> 
> I think it may be better to print mnt_id instead of sdev, because there
> may be two file descriptors opened from different bind mounts.

Fetching mnt_id is not that cheap in compare with sdev: instead of
straight dereference inode->i_sb->s_dev we will have to figure out
mnt_id from file+path, and our primary key is from sdev+ino anyway,
so until _really_ needed I prefer cheaper/simplier solution.