Message-ID: <20190326181929.eypk2hzprdltcrqd@brauner.io>
Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 19:19:30 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     jannh@...gle.com, khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru, luto@...nel.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, serge@...lyn.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        arnd@...db.de, keescook@...omium.org, adobriyan@...il.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mtk.manpages@...il.com, bl0pbl33p@...il.com,
        ldv@...linux.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, oleg@...hat.com,
        nagarathnam.muthusamy@...cle.com, cyphar@...har.com,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, dancol@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] pid: add pidctl()

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 02:10:12PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 06:22:33PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 01:06:01PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:55:11PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > > The pidctl() syscalls builds on, extends, and improves translate_pid() [4].
> > > > I quote Konstantins original patchset first that has already been acked and
> > > > picked up by Eric before and whose functionality is preserved in this
> > > > syscall:
> > > > 
> > > > "Each process have different pids, one for each pid namespace it belongs.
> > > >  When interaction happens within single pid-ns translation isn't required.
> > > >  More complicated scenarios needs special handling.
> > > > 
> > > >  For example:
> > > >  - reading pid-files or logs written inside container with pid namespace
> > > >  - writing logs with internal pids outside container for pushing them into
> > > >  - attaching with ptrace to tasks from different pid namespace
> > > > 
> > > >  Generally speaking, any cross pid-ns API with pids needs translation.
> > > > 
> > > >  Currently there are several interfaces that could be used here:
> > > > 
> > > >  Pid namespaces are identified by device and inode of /proc/[pid]/ns/pid.
> > > > 
> > > >  Pids for nested pid namespaces are shown in file /proc/[pid]/status.
> > > >  In some cases pid translation could be easily done using this information.
> > > >  Backward translation requires scanning all tasks and becomes really
> > > >  complicated for deeper namespace nesting.
> > > > 
> > > >  Unix socket automatically translates pid attached to SCM_CREDENTIALS.
> > > >  This requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN for sending arbitrary pids and entering
> > > >  into pid namespace, this expose process and could be insecure."
> > > > 
> > > > The original patchset allowed two distinct operations implicitly:
> > > > - discovering whether pid namespaces (pidns) have a parent-child
> > > >   relationship
> > > > - translating a pid from a source pidns into a target pidns
> > > > 
> > > > Both tasks are accomplished in the original patchset by passing a pid
> > > > along. If the pid argument is passed as 1 the relationship between two pid
> > > > namespaces can be discovered.
> > > > The syscall will gain a lot clearer syntax and will be easier to use for
> > > > userspace if the task it is asked to perform is passed through a
> > > > command argument. Additionally, it allows us to remove an intrinsic race
> > > > caused by using the pid argument as a way to discover the relationship
> > > > between pid namespaces.
> > > > This patch introduces three commands:
> > > > 
> > > > /* PIDCMD_QUERY_PID */
> > > > PIDCMD_QUERY_PID allows to translate a pid between pid namespaces.
> > > > Given a source pid namespace fd return the pid of the process in the target
> > > > namespace:
> > > 
> > > Could we call this PIDCMD_TRANSLATE_PID please? QUERY is confusing/ambigious
> > > IMO (see below).
> > 
> > Yes, doesn't matter to me too much what we call it.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > > > 1. pidctl(PIDCMD_QUERY_PID, pid, source_fd, -1, 0)
> > > >   - retrieve pidns identified by source_fd
> > > >   - retrieve struct pid identifed by pid in pidns identified by source_fd
> > > >   - retrieve callers pidns
> > > >   - return pid in callers pidns
> > > > 
> > > > 2. pidctl(PIDCMD_QUERY_PID, pid, -1, target_fd, 0)
> > > >   - retrieve callers pidns
> > > >   - retrieve struct pid identifed by pid in callers pidns
> > > >   - retrieve pidns identified by target_fd
> > > >   - return pid in pidns identified by target_fd
> > > > 
> > > > 3. pidctl(PIDCMD_QUERY_PID, 1, source_fd, -1, 0)
> > > >   - retrieve pidns identified by source_fd
> > > >   - retrieve struct pid identifed by init task in pidns identified by source_fd
> > > >   - retrieve callers pidns
> > > >   - return pid of init task of pidns identified by source_fd in callers pidns
> > > > 
> > > > 4. pidctl(PIDCMD_QUERY_PID, pid, source_fd, target_fd, 0)
> > > >   - retrieve pidns identified by source_fd
> > > >   - retrieve struct pid identifed by pid in pidns identified by source_fd
> > > >   - retrieve pidns identified by target_fd
> > > >   - check whether struct pid can be found in pidns identified by target_fd
> > > >   - return pid in pidns identified by target_fd
> > > > 
> > > > /* PIDCMD_QUERY_PIDNS */
> > > > PIDCMD_QUERY_PIDNS allows to determine the relationship between pid
> > > > namespaces.
> > > > In the original version of the pachset passing pid as 1 would allow to
> > > > deterimine the relationship between the pid namespaces. This is inherhently
> > > > racy. If pid 1 inside a pid namespace has died it would report false
> > > > negatives. For example, if pid 1 inside of the target pid namespace already
> > > > died, it would report that the target pid namespace cannot be reached from
> > > > the source pid namespace because it couldn't find the pid inside of the
> > > > target pid namespace and thus falsely report to the user that the two pid
> > > > namespaces are not related. This problem is simple to avoid. In the new
> > > > version we simply walk the list of ancestors and check whether the
> > > > namespace are related to each other. By doing it this way we can reliably
> > > > report what the relationship between two pid namespace file descriptors
> > > > looks like.
> > > > 
> > > > 1. pidctl(PIDCMD_QUERY_PIDNS, 0, ns_fd1, ns_fd1, 0) == 0
> > > >    - pidns_of(ns_fd1) and pidns_of(ns_fd2) are unrelated to each other
> > > > 
> > > > 2. pidctl(PIDCMD_QUERY_PIDNS, 0, ns_fd1, ns_fd2, 0) == 1
> > > >    - pidns_of(ns_fd1) == pidns_of(ns_fd2)
> > > > 
> > > > 3. pidctl(PIDCMD_QUERY_PIDNS, 0, ns_fd1, ns_fd2, 0) == 2
> > > >    - pidns_of(ns_fd1) is ancestor of pidns_of(ns_fd2)
> > > > 
> > > > 4. pidctl(PIDCMD_QUERY_PIDNS, 0, ns_fd1, ns_fd2, 0) == 3
> > > >    - pidns_of(ns_fd2) is ancestor of pidns_of(ns_fd1)
> > > 
> > > Why not call this PIDCMD_COMPARE_PIDNS, since a comparison is what you're doing.
> > 
> > Same.
> 
> Ok, glad we agree on it.
> 
> > > 
> > > Again QUERY is ambigious here. Above you called QUERY to translate something,
> > > now you're calling QUERY to mean compare something. I suggest to be explicit
> > > about the operation PIDCMD_<OPERATION>_<OPERAND-TYPE>.
> > > 
> > > Arguably, 2 syscalls for this is cleaner:
> > > pid_compare_namespaces(ns_fd1, ns_fd2);
> > > pid_translate(pid, ns_fd1, nds_fd2);
> > 
> > I don't think we want to send out pid_compare_namespaces() as a separate
> > syscall. If that's the consensus I'd rather just drop this functionality
> > completely.
> 
> I mean, if pid-namespace fd comparison functionality is not needed in
> userspace, why add it all. I suggest to drop it if not needed and can be
> considered for addition later when needed.
> 
> Then you're just left with GET_PID and TRANSLATE_PID which we know we do need.
> 
> > > > These two commands - PIDCMD_QUERY_PID and PIDCMD_QUERY_PIDNS - cover and
> > > > improve the functionality expressed implicitly in translate_pid() before.
> > > > 
> > > > /* PIDCMD_GET_PIDFD */
> > > 
> > > And this can be a third syscall:
> > > pidfd_translate(pid, ns_fd1, ns_fd2).
> > 
> > Sigh, yes. But I honestly want other people other than us to come out
> > and say "yes, please send a PR to Linus with three separate syscalls for
> > very closely related functionality". There's a difference between "this
> > is how we would ideally like to do it" and "this is what is common
> > practice and will likely get accepted". But I'm really not opposed to it
> > per se.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > > I am actually supportive of Daniel's view that by combining too many
> > > arguments into a single syscall, becomes confusing and sometimes some
> > > arguments have to be forced to 0 in the single shoe-horned syscall. Like you
> > 
> > There's a difference between an ioctl() and say seccomp() which this is
> > close to:
> > int seccomp(unsigned int operation, unsigned int flags, void *args);
> > The point is that the functionality is closely related not just randomly
> > unrelated stuff. But as I said I'm more than willing to compromise.
> 
> Sounds great, yeah whatever makes sense.

In case I haven't said this enough: I really appreciate the discussion
and in general the help on this. That probably sometimes gets lost in
mails sometimes. :)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists