Received: by 2002:ac0:bc90:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id a16csp277987img; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 00:03:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxHkwViOgZUFj7jZfLch4baqAEiMDIgmaWh9+ysIpBTgY8jQ+BthtGUfjdnN498/Ihqw92D X-Received: by 2002:a63:4847:: with SMTP id x7mr5621597pgk.233.1553065420335; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 00:03:40 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1553065420; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=gZCSCqJ8RUBhhEPE9GuPyxpSnPgK5Woke1OGHbsaqq3c6SF42A1g2AaJLu/yYJbR1X 5hglE05DXgtk9teRqj7th5vLGleQWOBHhzf88x7fpXwkQ131Xy5DOsEf4kQJMQ0yy3HZ UvgQZtAAbG9EhbcF+n9LzSEM1fMZywPxKG5wsQ9Z2UyqQgRvhaUwlG6lBAMB3hEa1few cUZrtqxcvQPd9qleAqFQaGCKK/HC8P+NfIOxLqtYDVC40xxn8JsKBT9skr2sFxY7NsUi 1248mhE0JN9Kuex9xSt9N0TqQ0tcLAJ0CRAPR0z3ADrGjazq0f0LdX9a+ApD03VdNkYi y2+A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=vAzgUFOLVUeLsi0TJbcZmkaGpPUw2R62FsElDTLduRg=; b=B651YCZSJ//Ajpc6oSI517MGD4dJQ2fo+Gusoc50GNq2QdJpJlC8FjWrWfDt8EVpZe +6DrFOBhyqXqewUwDM4T4GcvyhiAu5wS6B8oqXcsZY5vhLBifHctx0XkLUUHufOllNT9 2xcyfCuObRixz7sziUVGMT3uLDbV1p0T17g8qSWijCeYRSwosibLeubT8WQ4gVolyc3X lAjxwmCdfahYHyP94OCcXjB2Z629rBRfWIrCJhXKpmineZaLuzPOI9vL2RnET3MDZEdb lORXz8/f8zGD/LtQvHKy/FfYkiz42v85BM/XqdkXupH1JZN04x07EbMRODSYW/hkmbUW hcgg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20161025 header.b=fyxNliQL; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 59si1198714plb.405.2019.03.20.00.03.23; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 00:03:40 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20161025 header.b=fyxNliQL; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726969AbfCTHCq (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 20 Mar 2019 03:02:46 -0400 Received: from mail-vs1-f67.google.com ([209.85.217.67]:40330 "EHLO mail-vs1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726246AbfCTHCq (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2019 03:02:46 -0400 Received: by mail-vs1-f67.google.com with SMTP id z18so840260vso.7 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 00:02:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vAzgUFOLVUeLsi0TJbcZmkaGpPUw2R62FsElDTLduRg=; b=fyxNliQLxp3Nr34uwJ2T0LBfNXf/FWsZRLtPUpf+gLP4CDIaMf5qf1W36ZYWbO2C33 2etZxVpe3HnaDRa1e5pv3Me+oaEURa0DpWaIL3ydJucWIfG/26rm7z5vo3vBaAbu2Nj9 rSNae+6Gngf0K77jG+TV67FSIYgmU4nBDRzDfj7QjIQB1cIRAnp1rri0n6MzrQwajZiO Zlw8DfIOkLzg4JI/aJRQ1fp4FKqHjiA3zIT8Rrejt4j39rEFiaBgdgCU0+Oeak9dZf7O Ac5aDBa/YQ7zcQ5p5K0xiYfd6QBzXq/GNp3/iskdV2TC5FadutJqkgMCYTOAkXsppc0r dXJA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vAzgUFOLVUeLsi0TJbcZmkaGpPUw2R62FsElDTLduRg=; b=uDpF1Eob+a/6k4bpqlIjQGQs1JtpePAjWn9tcB3YI95Liq5hf6Lk2oA04u9U6lljY/ 7YZ0oVsItkMjsVf7tXzn2vBZ054P/0IsS3LoNN4/MPEKwaTopBbL08kuez/kVICmfv3P G/0XnzMo6imm0C0ed5NEKy9vrpQoK+8cXvT3cZnfq5w5+m5iK/Jicz95WPC9Q/gnDk/e wpacbVuHM2ddAwfBUL1TCiKb8Z71gHROWuEvfkkUUCoFMAiTY0Lrlg8PdM91iD2mGcXE +egBL86s3hBEw+EfNBH/qrDhR2TAoYzpunQnet7+0oHaDaEbH9YbFQ3WohMZG6a8N15E 1J6g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWwpPFfKQrMWSNqXlONIxywd6SJSVv7+N2Vg9snWaAEiokv+ixQ aD4R58d/oGGtqIX9QsglA0FqFZxj5MFq8goVTgjVxw== X-Received: by 2002:a67:e446:: with SMTP id n6mr3837465vsm.183.1553065364333; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 00:02:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190317015306.GA167393@google.com> <20190317114238.ab6tvvovpkpozld5@brauner.io> <20190318002949.mqknisgt7cmjmt7n@brauner.io> <20190318235052.GA65315@google.com> <20190319221415.baov7x6zoz7hvsno@brauner.io> <20190319231020.tdcttojlbmx57gke@brauner.io> <20190320015249.GC129907@google.com> <20190320035953.mnhax3vd47ya4zzm@brauner.io> In-Reply-To: <20190320035953.mnhax3vd47ya4zzm@brauner.io> From: Daniel Colascione Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 00:02:32 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: pidfd design To: Christian Brauner Cc: Joel Fernandes , Suren Baghdasaryan , Steven Rostedt , Sultan Alsawaf , Tim Murray , Michal Hocko , Greg Kroah-Hartman , =?UTF-8?B?QXJ2ZSBIasO4bm5ldsOlZw==?= , Todd Kjos , Martijn Coenen , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , LKML , "open list:ANDROID DRIVERS" , linux-mm , kernel-team , Oleg Nesterov , Andy Lutomirski , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Kees Cook Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:59 PM Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 07:42:52PM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 6:52 PM Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:10:23AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 03:48:32PM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:14 PM Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > > > So I dislike the idea of allocating new inodes from the procfs super > > > > > > block. I would like to avoid pinning the whole pidfd concept exclusively > > > > > > to proc. The idea is that the pidfd API will be useable through procfs > > > > > > via open("/proc/") because that is what users expect and really > > > > > > wanted to have for a long time. So it makes sense to have this working. > > > > > > But it should really be useable without it. That's why translate_pid() > > > > > > and pidfd_clone() are on the table. What I'm saying is, once the pidfd > > > > > > api is "complete" you should be able to set CONFIG_PROCFS=N - even > > > > > > though that's crazy - and still be able to use pidfds. This is also a > > > > > > point akpm asked about when I did the pidfd_send_signal work. > > > > > > > > > > I agree that you shouldn't need CONFIG_PROCFS=Y to use pidfds. One > > > > > crazy idea that I was discussing with Joel the other day is to just > > > > > make CONFIG_PROCFS=Y mandatory and provide a new get_procfs_root() > > > > > system call that returned, out of thin air and independent of the > > > > > mount table, a procfs root directory file descriptor for the caller's > > > > > PID namspace and suitable for use with openat(2). > > > > > > > > Even if this works I'm pretty sure that Al and a lot of others will not > > > > be happy about this. A syscall to get an fd to /proc? > > > > Why not? procfs provides access to a lot of core kernel functionality. > > Why should you need a mountpoint to get to it? > > > > > That's not going > > > > to happen and I don't see the need for a separate syscall just for that. > > > > We need a system call for the same reason we need a getrandom(2): you > > have to bootstrap somehow when you're in a minimal environment. > > > > > > (I do see the point of making CONFIG_PROCFS=y the default btw.) > > > > I'm not proposing that we make CONFIG_PROCFS=y the default. I'm > > proposing that we *hardwire* it as the default and just declare that > > it's not possible to build a Linux kernel that doesn't include procfs. > > Why do we even have that button? > > > > > I think his point here was that he wanted a handle to procfs no matter where > > > it was mounted and then can later use openat on that. Agreed that it may be > > > unnecessary unless there is a usecase for it, and especially if the /proc > > > directory being the defacto mountpoint for procfs is a universal convention. > > > > If it's a universal convention and, in practice, everyone needs proc > > mounted anyway, so what's the harm in hardwiring CONFIG_PROCFS=y? If > > we advertise /proc as not merely some kind of optional debug interface > > but *the* way certain kernel features are exposed --- and there's > > nothing wrong with that --- then we should give programs access to > > these core kernel features in a way that doesn't depend on userspace > > kernel configuration, and you do that by either providing a > > procfs-root-getting system call or just hardwiring the "/proc/" prefix > > into VFS. > > > > > > Inode allocation from the procfs mount for the file descriptors Joel > > > > wants is not correct. Their not really procfs file descriptors so this > > > > is a nack. We can't just hook into proc that way. > > > > > > I was not particular about using procfs mount for the FDs but that's the only > > > way I knew how to do it until you pointed out anon_inode (my grep skills > > > missed that), so thank you! > > > > > > > > C'mon: /proc is used by everyone today and almost every program breaks > > > > > if it's not around. The string "/proc" is already de facto kernel ABI. > > > > > Let's just drop the pretense of /proc being optional and bake it into > > > > > the kernel proper, then give programs a way to get to /proc that isn't > > > > > tied to any particular mount configuration. This way, we don't need a > > > > > translate_pid(), since callers can just use procfs to do the same > > > > > thing. (That is, if I understand correctly what translate_pid does.) > > > > > > > > I'm not sure what you think translate_pid() is doing since you're not > > > > saying what you think it does. > > > > Examples from the old patchset: > > > > translate_pid(pid, ns, -1) - get pid in our pid namespace > > > > Ah, it's a bit different from what I had in mind. It's fair to want to > > translate PIDs between namespaces, but the only way to make the > > translate_pid under discussion robust is to have it accept and produce > > pidfds. (At that point, you might as well call it translate_pidfd.) We > > should not be adding new APIs to the kernel that accept numeric PIDs: > > The traditional pid-based api is not going away. There are users that > have the requirement to translate pids between namespaces and also doing > introspection on these namespaces independent of pidfds. We will not > restrict the usefulness of this syscall by making it only work with > pidfds. > > > it's not possible to use these APIs correctly except under very > > limited circumstances --- mostly, talking about init or a parent > > The pid-based api is one of the most widely used apis of the kernel and > people have been using it quite successfully for a long time. Yes, it's > rac, but it's here to stay. > > > talking about its child. > > > > Really, we need a few related operations, and we shouldn't necessarily > > mingle them. > > Yes, we've established that previously. > > > > > 1) Given a numeric PID, give me a pidfd: that works today: you just > > open /proc/ > > Agreed. > > > > > 2) Given a pidfd, give me a numeric PID: that works today: you just > > openat(pidfd, "stat", O_RDONLY) and read the first token (which is > > always the numeric PID). > > Agreed. > > > > > 3) Given a pidfd, send a signal: that's what pidfd_send_signal does, > > and it's a good start on the rest of these operations. > > Agreed. > > > 5) Given a pidfd in NS1, get a pidfd in NS2. That's what translate_pid > > is for. My preferred signature for this routine is translate_pid(int > > pidfd, int nsfd) -> pidfd. We don't need two namespace arguments. Why > > not? Because the pidfd *already* names a single process, uniquely! > > Given that people are interested in pids we can't just always return a > pidfd. That would mean a user would need to do get the pidfd read from > /stat and then close the pidfd. If you do that for a 100 pids or > more you end up allocating and closing file descriptors constantly for > no reason. We can't just debate pids away. So it will also need to be > able to yield pids e.g. through a flag argument. Sure, but that's still not a reason that we should care about pidfds working separately from procfs.