Date:	Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:36:04 -0800
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com>
Cc:	"Trond.Myklebust\@netapp.com" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	"linux-nfs\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	"neilb\@suse.de" <neilb@...e.de>,
	"netdev\@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com>,
	"bfields\@fieldses.org" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	"davem\@davemloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"devel\@openvz.org" <devel@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] SYSCTL: export root and set handling routines

Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com> writes:

> 11.01.2012 21:21, Eric W. Biederman пишет:
>>>>>> Especially what drives that desire not to have it have a /proc/<pid>/sys
>>>>>> directory that reflects the sysctls for a given process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not so important for me, where to access sysctl's. But I'm worrying
>>>>> about backward compatibility. IOW, I'm afraid of changing path
>>>>> "/proc/sys/sunprc/*" to "/proc/<pid>/sys/sunrpc". This would break a lot of
>>>>> user-space programs.
>>>>
>>>> The part that keeps it all working is by adding a symlink from /proc/sys
>>>> to /proc/self/sys.  That technique has worked well for /proc/net, and I
>>>> don't expect there will be any problems with /proc/sys either.  It is
>>>> possible but is very rare for the introduction of a symlink in a path
>>>> to cause problems.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Probably I don't understand you, but as I see it now, symlink to "/proc/self/"
>>> is unacceptable because of the following:
>>> 1) will be used current context (any) instead of desired one
>> (Using the current context is the desirable outcome for existing tools).
>>> 1) if CT has other pid namespace - then we just have broken link.
>>
>> Assuming the process in question is not in the pid namespace available
>> to proc then yes you will indeed have a broken link.  But a broken
>> link is only a problem for new applications that are doing something strange.
>>
>
> I believe, that container is assuming to work in  it's own network and pid
> namespaces.
> With your approach, if I'm not mistaken, container's /proc/net and /proc/sys
> tunables will be unaccessible from parent environment. Or I'm wrong here?

Wrong.

>> I am proposing treating /proc/sys like /proc/net has already been
>> treated.  Aka move have the version of /proc/sys that relative to a
>> process be visible at: /proc/<pid>/sys, and with a compat symlink
>> from /proc/sys ->  /proc/self/sys.
>>
>> Just like has already been done with /proc/net.
>>
>
> 1) On one hand it looks logical, that any nested dentries in /proc are tied to
> pid namespace. But on the other hand we have a lot of tunables in /proc/net,
> /proc/sys, etc. which have nothing with processes or whatever similar.

Please stop and take a look at /proc/net.  If your /proc/net is not a
symlink please look at a modern kernel.

/proc/<pid>/net reflects the network namespace of the task in question.

> 2) currently /proc processes directories (i.e. /proc/1/, etc) depends on mount
> maker context. But /proc/sys and /proc/net doesn't. This looks weird and
> despondently, from my pow. What do you think about it?

Yep.  Sysfs is weird.  Ideally sysfs would display all devices all of
the time but unfortunately that breaks backwards compatibility.

In proc we have the opportunity to display nearly everything all of the
time and I think that opportunity is worth seizing.

Having to mount a filesystem simply because the designers of the
filesystem were not creative enough to figure out how to display
all of the information the filesystem is responsible for displaying
without having namespace conflicts is unfortunate.

> And what do you think about "conteinerization" of /proc contents in the way like
> "sysfs" was done?

I think the way sysfs is done is a pain in the neck to use.  Especially
in the context of commands like "ip netns exec".  With the sysfs model
there is a lot of extra state to manage.

I totally agree that the way sysfs is done is much better than the way
/proc/sys is done today.  Looking at current can be limiting in the
general case.

My current preference is the way /proc/net was done.

> Implementing /proc "conteinerization" in this way can give us great flexibility.
> For example, /proc/net (and /proc/sys/sunrpc) depends on mount owner net
> namespace, /proc/sysvipc depends on mount owner ipc namespace, etc.
> And this approach doesn't break backward compatibility as well.

The thing is /proc/net is already done.

All I see with making things like /proc/net depend on the context of the
process that called mount is a need to call mount much more often.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists