Received: by 2002:a25:4158:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id o85csp2231094yba; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:05:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyiP22CTXR+s1BneQncoj3Qq8u4tvaar0Olmqa94zGF0m3lZZqHZPPeUGss/jwKRiIWtPMd X-Received: by 2002:a63:dc50:: with SMTP id f16mr6152775pgj.396.1555711506968; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:05:06 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1555711506; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=AFb4K1ZpR9roGFUW2dJ+oFC3VkXBqUzehmwyMTLNJ9tsUyHTGMdwh8MljwNRnNIQFt Hgn+qZRCiMcYCxXEvxJrPseKA0QGroCF0DmWdPaPbHZxZp1/qCi4I8hTpFBF7Vt4N3mG AXi4tDHfo5BmL7iNiIzGlek3Do8qA3iCVvfEe01RIY/OhjAgyzmiDeifus9zayf1SMen 9YRGOT9wdKXaVZpOsevsyoTuEbzsHAB7XzMkAijNSF0+b52i3v/uiTZ/gYgOyhN+5NdS E76IzuV3q9DoX+/jx8b6nbTOAl6+/iYmuaoxjksr/LRhJZgaUy6X8pCwNy99SRLKGgbu Nhwg== 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=XHvIqjXVG3hDze79GrVKeaQ54xyD20wdRN/IsMyqUR4=; b=ZL6xhayVngAZgmqMQ4gUtT7E6cz4epPFCxSrwTS0/xruT3ieBsuzUJMQp104CIf9i9 6+LsYWmhQ2Ej1Vf+0yjZVfmUY8sJ6dKSJS+VJocjsSaUMNfzW5gxgiPqvlhokhxOOrb8 zsj6pnxp4a3ooTS6ESo28DCz3OHdTT6Edl630kiTWSI62RQcAgaOTtTlPVhtvNML+nuj 8w5nW9zh8IumZxweW3kwa5hOcvdqr2HVeu6iZtGviNm3x9ANTrd1Xb4t5LttR0C32rpb pEOYbn4NVc4VICvjFk21UrMbHB6UgnopDetm3sXoEjr6H/t72MADcLShev+S1njeqsXR RDAA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@brauner.io header.s=google header.b="dw/6c44J"; 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 Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id v13si3004564pgo.550.2019.04.19.15.04.50; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:05:06 -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=@brauner.io header.s=google header.b="dw/6c44J"; 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 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727608AbfDSWCb (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 18:02:31 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f193.google.com ([209.85.208.193]:39917 "EHLO mail-lj1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726126AbfDSWCa (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 18:02:30 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f193.google.com with SMTP id l7so5663014ljg.6 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:02:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brauner.io; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XHvIqjXVG3hDze79GrVKeaQ54xyD20wdRN/IsMyqUR4=; b=dw/6c44J4eYX/mAM4oL/PoqFm+o9XLiWdidLRRgIFV5DsATr2IDclVN04rCfa/J3j5 NpbjduiUWs2vTNrYrucMxGU4qIbOBLh5PlJJnLWHWVfiln22XeksBqawMWp4Gk07MrGY 8hxGoisbDHrVvS0IfhtaoZSu7we9JAXIobjfZnvQDQwa/MWdrgJBEv5dPx3iZOojoR0N woI3Obxc7CSKeMuaGEy+vnHMEQlLgVJyahNamk4PZcVmXoEuveanUpk/jgZW67CJL19K iX+zr86UEOpsITdane4pfyHrnCfkJdnhZHKMxtUe1q6SuoJFMtvE7VjUn3oekyI5I5iQ HLrg== 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=XHvIqjXVG3hDze79GrVKeaQ54xyD20wdRN/IsMyqUR4=; b=kcKOPxtpwxtykz+TOkAJloHuZvrstSKeOnTELADceFDHEfTt0Kp1qX9r+vVmo2Kdum eH+B6QyxSW25aPaE3MD/I4BEZxAulhliFF/S1T8gmkYYO0FAJG/3omicyJDmAZ9lamsz eY+Azz+EQ2bgg1MZ+EADGKb2yqGGGkdi9jRAAK+TFNC7w+AHqpqeRaZYeDCwMHF6tICL +PaDvJwOucuRJslftHC0nQKFmWhM3gkUjNVWLtlzNGpcPYELZAbVl6Ep5akHMGluQJiU rBPpxC01WDOM6+NNwvMJhx/gMpGhsM8ZqO0EQ7KHp6fcD71TQEXaZc9WEJcpzOvo0YxG Rylw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUfmWb5FGo7SXF4AV51A9JkJy2+aqjH/T8kAmRvryiFIx0en7p8 NyxKUfMhZ5ZbCtL4tkLaxdxTSQuugwFh8VudJtEZxg== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:380c:: with SMTP id f12mr3344831lja.116.1555711348028; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:02:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190411175043.31207-1-joel@joelfernandes.org> <20190416120430.GA15437@redhat.com> <20190416192051.GA184889@google.com> <20190417130940.GC32622@redhat.com> <20190419190247.GB251571@google.com> <20190419191858.iwcvqm6fihbkaata@brauner.io> <20190419194902.GE251571@google.com> In-Reply-To: From: Christian Brauner Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 00:02:17 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] Add polling support to pidfd To: Daniel Colascione Cc: Joel Fernandes , Jann Horn , Oleg Nesterov , Florian Weimer , kernel list , Andy Lutomirski , Steven Rostedt , Suren Baghdasaryan , Linus Torvalds , Alexey Dobriyan , Al Viro , Andrei Vagin , Andrew Morton , Arnd Bergmann , "Eric W. Biederman" , Kees Cook , linux-fsdevel , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , Michal Hocko , Nadav Amit , Serge Hallyn , Shuah Khan , Stephen Rothwell , Taehee Yoo , Tejun Heo , Thomas Gleixner , kernel-team , Tycho Andersen 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 Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 11:48 PM Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 11:21 PM Daniel Colascione wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 1:57 PM Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:34 PM Daniel Colascione wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 12:49 PM Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 09:18:59PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 03:02:47PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 07:26:44PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > > > > > On April 18, 2019 7:23:38 PM GMT+02:00, Jann Horn wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 3:09 PM Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > > > >> On 04/16, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 02:04:31PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Could you explain when it should return POLLIN? When the whole > > > > > > > > >process exits? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > It returns POLLIN when the task is dead or doesn't exist anymore, > > > > > > > > >or when it > > > > > > > > >> > is in a zombie state and there's no other thread in the thread > > > > > > > > >group. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> IOW, when the whole thread group exits, so it can't be used to > > > > > > > > >monitor sub-threads. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> just in case... speaking of this patch it doesn't modify > > > > > > > > >proc_tid_base_operations, > > > > > > > > >> so you can't poll("/proc/sub-thread-tid") anyway, but iiuc you are > > > > > > > > >going to use > > > > > > > > >> the anonymous file returned by CLONE_PIDFD ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I don't think procfs works that way. /proc/sub-thread-tid has > > > > > > > > >proc_tgid_base_operations despite not being a thread group leader. > > > > > > > > >(Yes, that's kinda weird.) AFAICS the WARN_ON_ONCE() in this code can > > > > > > > > >be hit trivially, and then the code will misbehave. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >@Joel: I think you'll have to either rewrite this to explicitly bail > > > > > > > > >out if you're dealing with a thread group leader, or make the code > > > > > > > > >work for threads, too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The latter case probably being preferred if this API is supposed to be > > > > > > > > useable for thread management in userspace. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the moment, we are not planning to use this for sub-thread management. I > > > > > > > am reworking this patch to only work on clone(2) pidfds which makes the above > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed and agreed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion about /proc a bit unnecessary I think. Per the latest CLONE_PIDFD > > > > > > > patches, CLONE_THREAD with pidfd is not supported. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. We have no one asking for it right now and we can easily add this > > > > > > later. > > > > > > > > > > > > Admittedly I haven't gotten around to reviewing the patches here yet > > > > > > completely. But one thing about using POLLIN. FreeBSD is using POLLHUP > > > > > > on process exit which I think is nice as well. How about returning > > > > > > POLLIN | POLLHUP on process exit? > > > > > > We already do things like this. For example, when you proxy between > > > > > > ttys. If the process that you're reading data from has exited and closed > > > > > > it's end you still can't usually simply exit because it might have still > > > > > > buffered data that you want to read. The way one can deal with this > > > > > > from userspace is that you can observe a (POLLHUP | POLLIN) event and > > > > > > you keep on reading until you only observe a POLLHUP without a POLLIN > > > > > > event at which point you know you have read > > > > > > all data. > > > > > > I like the semantics for pidfds as well as it would indicate: > > > > > > - POLLHUP -> process has exited > > > > > > - POLLIN -> information can be read > > > > > > > > > > Actually I think a bit different about this, in my opinion the pidfd should > > > > > always be readable (we would store the exit status somewhere in the future > > > > > which would be readable, even after task_struct is dead). So I was thinking > > > > > we always return EPOLLIN. If process has not exited, then it blocks. > > > > > > > > ITYM that a pidfd polls as readable *once a task exits* and stays > > > > readable forever. Before a task exit, a poll on a pidfd should *not* > > > > yield POLLIN and reading that pidfd should *not* complete immediately. > > > > There's no way that, having observed POLLIN on a pidfd, you should > > > > ever then *not* see POLLIN on that pidfd in the future --- it's a > > > > one-way transition from not-ready-to-get-exit-status to > > > > ready-to-get-exit-status. > > > > > > What do you consider interesting state transitions? A listener on a pidfd > > > in epoll_wait() might be interested if the process execs for example. > > > That's a very valid use-case for e.g. systemd. > > > > Sure, but systemd is specialized. > > So is Android and we're not designing an interface for Android but for > all of userspace. > I hope this is clear. Service managers are quite important and systemd > is the largest one > and they can make good use of this feature. > > > > > There are two broad classes of programs that care about process exit > > status: 1) those that just want to do something and wait for it to > > complete, and 2) programs that want to perform detailed monitoring of > > processes and intervention in their state. #1 is overwhelmingly more > > common. The basic pidfd feature should take care of case #1 only, as > > wait*() in file descriptor form. I definitely don't think we should be > > complicating the interface and making it more error-prone (see below) > > for the sake of that rare program that cares about non-exit > > notification conditions. You're proposing a complicated combination of > > poll bit flags that most users (the ones who just wait to wait for > > processes) don't care about and that risk making the facility hard to > > use with existing event loops, which generally recognize readability > > and writability as the only properties that are worth monitoring. > > That whole pargraph is about dismissing a range of valid use-cases based on > assumptions such as "way more common" and > even argues that service managers are special cases and therefore not > really worth considering. I would like to be more open to other use cases. > > > > > > We can't use EPOLLIN for that too otherwise you'd need to to waitid(_WNOHANG) > > > to check whether an exit status can be read which is not nice and then you > > > multiplex different meanings on the same bit. > > > I would prefer if the exit status can only be read from the parent which is > > > clean and the least complicated semantics, i.e. Linus waitid() idea. > > > > Exit status information should be *at least* as broadly available > > through pidfds as it is through the last field of /proc/pid/stat > > today, and probably more broadly. I've been saying for six months now > > that we need to talk about *who* should have access to exit status > > information. We haven't had that conversation yet. My preference is to > > just make exit status information globally available, as FreeBSD seems Totally aside from whether or not this is a good idea but since you keep bringing this up and I'm really curious about this where is this documented and how does this work, please?