linux-kernel - Re: clone3: allow creation of time namespace with offset

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: <CAK8P3a2-qQhpRdF0+iVrpp=vEvgwtndQL89CUm_QzoW2QYX1Jw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Mar 2020 11:18:53 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Adrian Reber <areber@...hat.com>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <ovzxemul@...il.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Radostin Stoyanov <rstoyanov1@...il.com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: clone3: allow creation of time namespace with offset

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 9:32 AM Adrian Reber <areber@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> This is an attempt to add time namespace support to clone3(). I am not
> really sure which way clone3() should handle time namespaces. The time
> namespace through /proc cannot be used with clone3() because the offsets
> for the time namespace need to be written before a process has been
> created in that time namespace. This means it is necessary to somehow
> tell clone3() the offsets for the clocks.
>
> The time namespace offers the possibility to set offsets for
> CLOCK_MONOTONIC and CLOCK_BOOTTIME. My first approach was to extend
> 'struct clone_args` with '__aligned_u64 monotonic_offset' and
> '__aligned_u64 boottime_offset'. The problem with this approach was that
> it was not possible to set nanoseconds for the clocks in the time
> namespace.
>
> One of the motivations for clone3() with CLONE_NEWTIME was to enable
> CRIU to restore a process in a time namespace with the corresponding
> offsets. And although the nanosecond value can probably never be
> restored to the same value it had during checkpointing, because the
> clock keeps on running between CRIU pausing all processes and CRIU
> actually reading the value of the clocks, the nanosecond value is still
> necessary for CRIU to not restore a process where the clock jumps back
> due to CRIU restoring it with a nanonsecond value that is too small.
>
> Requiring nanoseconds as well as seconds for two clocks during clone3()
> means that it would require 4 additional members to 'struct clone_args':
>
>         __aligned_u64 tls;
>         __aligned_u64 set_tid;
>         __aligned_u64 set_tid_size;
> +       __aligned_u64 boottime_offset_seconds;
> +       __aligned_u64 boottime_offset_nanoseconds;
> +       __aligned_u64 monotonic_offset_seconds;
> +       __aligned_u64 monotonic_offset_nanoseconds;
>  };

Wouldn't it be sufficient to have the two nanosecond values, rather
than both seconds and nanoseconds? With 64-bit nanoseconds
you can represent several hundred years, and these would
always start at zero during boot.

Regardless of this, I think you need a signed offset, not unsigned.

          Arnd