Message-ID: <20200218172635.lazw7jcfxm47idpe@wittgenstein>
Date:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 18:26:35 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To:     Adrian Reber <adrian@...as.de>
Cc:     "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
        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 <ovzxemul@...il.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()?

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 06:11:26PM +0100, Adrian Reber wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:03:31AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:47:53PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> > > 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.)
> > 
> > I don't particularly mind either way. If there's actual users that need
> > to set it at clone3() time then we can extend it. So I'd like to hear
> > what Adrian, Dmitry, and Thomas think since they are well-versed how
> > this will be used in the wild. I'm weary of exposing a whole new uapi
> > struct and extending clone3() without any real use-case but I'm happy to
> > if there is!
> 
> Re-creating a time namespace during restore via clone3() would be CRIU's
> preferred way of doing this. If available CRIU is already using
> clone3(), especially because of set_tid, and for the time namespace we
> would also rely on clone3() to re-create it.
> 
> I will provide a patch to extend clone3() to handle the creation of a
> new time namespace.

Great, thanks!
Christian

Powered by blists - more mailing lists