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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191218235459.GA17271@ircssh-2.c.rugged-nimbus-611.internal>
 <CAK8P3a2eT=bHkUamyp-P3Y2adNq1KBk7UknCYBY5_aR4zJmYaQ@mail.gmail.com> <20191219103525.yqb5f4pbd2dvztkb@wittgenstein>
In-Reply-To: <20191219103525.yqb5f4pbd2dvztkb@wittgenstein>
From:   Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>
Date:   Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:15:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMp4zn_z-CCQYMpT=GjZeGVLobjHBCSbmfha1rtWdmptOQ8JtA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] pid: Add PIDFD_IOCTL_GETFD to fetch file
 descriptors from processes
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Gian-Carlo Pascutto <gpascutto@mozilla.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Emilio_Cobos_=C3=81lvarez?= <ealvarez@mozilla.com>,
        Jed Davis <jld@mozilla.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 2:35 AM Christian Brauner
<christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> I guess this is the remaining question we should settle, i.e. what do we
> prefer.
> I still think that adding a new syscall for this seems a bit rich. On
> the other hand it seems that a lot more people agree that using a
> dedicated syscall instead of an ioctl is the correct way; especially
> when it touches core kernel functionality. I mean that was one of the
> takeaways from the pidfd API ioctl-vs-syscall discussion.
>
> A syscall is nicer especially for core-kernel code like this.
> So I guess the only way to find out is to try the syscall approach and
> either get yelled and switch to an ioctl() or have it accepted.
>
> What does everyone else think? Arnd, still in favor of a syscall I take
> it. Oleg, you had suggested a syscall too, right? Florian, any
> thoughts/worries on/about this from the glibc side?
>
> Christian

My feelings towards this are that syscalls might pose a problem if we
ever want to extend this API. Of course we can have a reserved
"flags" field, and populate it later, but what if we turn out to need
a proper struct? I already know we're going to want to add one
around cgroup metadata (net_cls), and likely we'll want to add
a "steal" flag as well. As Arnd mentioned earlier, this is trivial to
fix in a traditional ioctl environment, as ioctls are "cheap". How
do we feel about potentially adding a pidfd_getfd2? Or are we
confident that reserved flags will save us?