[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <647ebdbf-ef15-1838-13f6-5bb9cf729f74@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:41:08 +0300
From: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
To: Nagarathnam Muthusamy <nagarathnam.muthusamy@...cle.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] pidns: introduce syscall translate_pid
On 17.10.2017 00:05, Nagarathnam Muthusamy wrote:
>
>
> On 10/16/2017 09:24 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 10/13, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13.10.2017 19:05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>> I won't insist, but this suggests we should add a new helper,
>>>> get_ns_by_fd_type(fd, type), and convert get_net_ns_by_fd() to use it
>>>> as well.
>>> That was in v3.
>>>
>>> I'll prefer to this later, separately. And replace fget with fdget which
>>> allows to do this without atomic operations if task is single-threaded.
>> OK, agreed,
>>
>>>> Stupid question. Can't we make a simpler API which doesn't need /proc/ ?
>>>> I mean,
>>>>
>>>> sys_translate_pid(pid_t pid, pid_t source_pid, pid_t target_pid)
>>>> {
>>>> struct pid_namespace *source_ns, *target_ns;
>>>>
>>>> source_ns = task_active_pid_ns(find_task_by_vpid(source_pid));
>>>> target_ns = task_active_pid_ns(find_task_by_vpid(target_pid));
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> }
>>>>> Yes, this is more limited... Do you have a use-case when this is not enough?
>>> That was in v1 but considered too racy.
>> Hmm, I don't understand...
>>
>> Yes sure, this is racy but open("/proc/$pid/ns/pid") is racy too?
>>
>> OK, once you do fd=open("/proc/$pid/ns/pid") you can use this fd even after
>> its owner exits, while find_task_by_vpid() will fail or find another task if
>> this pid was already reused.
>>
>> But once again, do you have a use-case when this is important?
>
> I believe that in V1 Eric pointed out that pid in general is not a clean way to represent
> namespace. (https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/22/1087) Few old interfaces used pid only because at that time there was no better way to represent
> namespaces.
>
Yeah, that was a reason.
If we think further - all syscalls who operates with non-child tasks racy and
must be be replaced with some kind of pidfd or taskfd.
Eric pointed that too: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/508
>>
>>> But we could merge both ways:
>>>
>>> source >= 0 - pidns fs
>>> source < 0 - task_pid = -source
>> But for what? I must have missed something...
I mean we could have both ways to point namespace in one agrument.
Some classic syscalls emply similar magic for negative pids.
This is cheap and looks almost sane. =)
>>
>> Oleg.
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists