linux-kernel - Re: Time Namespaces: CLONE

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: <CAKgNAkjfdWFwNdFzdBY81_8WZJNtbtztfjO9T2YNQDV4ThNiNw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Feb 2020 22:47:53 +0100
From:   "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>, Andrei Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
        Adrian Reber <adrian@...as.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
        containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        criu@...nvz.org, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        x86@...nel.org, Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Time Namespaces: CLONE_NEWTIME and clone3()?

Hello Christian,

On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 16:15, Christian Brauner
<christian.brauner@...ntu.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 03:20:55PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > Hello Dmitry, Andrei,
> >
> > Is the CLONE_NEWTIME flag intended to be usable with clone3()? The
> > mail quoted below implies (in my reading) that this should be possible
> > once clone3() is available, which it is by now. (See also [1].)
> >
> > If the answer is yes, CLONE_NEWTIME  should be usable with clone3(),
> > then I have a bug report and a question.
> >
> > I successfully used CLONE_NEWTIME with unshare(). But if I try to use
> > CLONE_NEWSIGNAL with clone3(), it errors out with EINVAL, because of
>
> s/CLONE_NEWSIGNAL/CLONE_NEWTIME/
>
> > the following check in clone3_args_valid():
> >
> >         /*
> >          * - make the CLONE_DETACHED bit reuseable for clone3
> >          * - make the CSIGNAL bits reuseable for clone3
> >          */
> >         if (kargs->flags & (CLONE_DETACHED | CSIGNAL))
> >                 return false;
> >
> > The problem is that CLONE_NEWTIME matches one of the bits in the
> > CSIGNAL mask. If the intention is to allow CLONE_NEWTIME with
> > clone3(), then either the bit needs to be redefined, or the error
> > checking in clone3_args_valid() needs to be reworked.
>
> If this is intended to be useable with clone3() the check should be
> adapted to allow for CLONE_NEWTIME. (I asked about this a while ago I
> think.)
> But below rather sounds like it should simply be an unshare() flag. The
> code seems to set frozen_offsets to true right after copy_namespaces()
> in timens_on_fork(new_ns, tsk) and so the offsets can't be changed
> anymore unless I'm reading this wrong.
> Alternatives seem to either make timens_offsets writable once after fork
> and before exec, I guess - though that's probably not going to work
> with the vdso judging from timens_on_fork().
>
> The other alternative is that Andrei and Dmitry send me a patch to
> enable CLONE_NEWTIME with clone3() by exposing struct timens_offsets (or
> a version of it) in the uapi and extend struct clone_args to include a
> pointer to a struct timens_offset that is _only_ set when CLONE_NEWTIME
> is set.
> Though the unshare() way sounds way less invasive simpler.

Actually, I think the alternative you propose just here is better. I
imagine there are times when one will want to create multiple
namespaces with a single call to clone3(), including a time namespace.
I think this should be allowed by the API. And, otherwise, clone3()
becomes something of a second-class citizen for creating namespaces.
(I don't really get the "less invasive" argument. Implementing this is
just a piece of kernel to code to make user-space's life a bit simpler
and more consistent.)

Thanks,

Michael



-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/