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: <20191112012724.250792-1-dima@arista.com> <20191112012724.250792-4-dima@arista.com>
 <CAHO5Pa2_7BzZPCXjFj4f=YoX28M4q2Au=h6GrzN-EjRffMo1iw@mail.gmail.com> <20200217145908.7epzz5nescccwvzv@wittgenstein>
In-Reply-To: <20200217145908.7epzz5nescccwvzv@wittgenstein>
Reply-To: mtk.manpages@gmail.com
From:   "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Feb 2020 22:47:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKgNAkjfdWFwNdFzdBY81_8WZJNtbtztfjO9T2YNQDV4ThNiNw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Time Namespaces: CLONE_NEWTIME and clone3()?
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com>, Andrei Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com>,
        Adrian Reber <adrian@lisas.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@virtuozzo.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
        containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        criu@openvz.org, Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        x86@kernel.org, Andrei Vagin <avagin@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello Christian,

On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 16:15, Christian Brauner
<christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 03:20:55PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > Hello Dmitry, Andrei,
> >
> > Is the CLONE_NEWTIME flag intended to be usable with clone3()? The
> > mail quoted below implies (in my reading) that this should be possible
> > once clone3() is available, which it is by now. (See also [1].)
> >
> > If the answer is yes, CLONE_NEWTIME  should be usable with clone3(),
> > then I have a bug report and a question.
> >
> > I successfully used CLONE_NEWTIME with unshare(). But if I try to use
> > CLONE_NEWSIGNAL with clone3(), it errors out with EINVAL, because of
>
> s/CLONE_NEWSIGNAL/CLONE_NEWTIME/
>
> > the following check in clone3_args_valid():
> >
> >         /*
> >          * - make the CLONE_DETACHED bit reuseable for clone3
> >          * - make the CSIGNAL bits reuseable for clone3
> >          */
> >         if (kargs->flags & (CLONE_DETACHED | CSIGNAL))
> >                 return false;
> >
> > The problem is that CLONE_NEWTIME matches one of the bits in the
> > CSIGNAL mask. If the intention is to allow CLONE_NEWTIME with
> > clone3(), then either the bit needs to be redefined, or the error
> > checking in clone3_args_valid() needs to be reworked.
>
> If this is intended to be useable with clone3() the check should be
> adapted to allow for CLONE_NEWTIME. (I asked about this a while ago I
> think.)
> But below rather sounds like it should simply be an unshare() flag. The
> code seems to set frozen_offsets to true right after copy_namespaces()
> in timens_on_fork(new_ns, tsk) and so the offsets can't be changed
> anymore unless I'm reading this wrong.
> Alternatives seem to either make timens_offsets writable once after fork
> and before exec, I guess - though that's probably not going to work
> with the vdso judging from timens_on_fork().
>
> The other alternative is that Andrei and Dmitry send me a patch to
> enable CLONE_NEWTIME with clone3() by exposing struct timens_offsets (or
> a version of it) in the uapi and extend struct clone_args to include a
> pointer to a struct timens_offset that is _only_ set when CLONE_NEWTIME
> is set.
> Though the unshare() way sounds way less invasive simpler.

Actually, I think the alternative you propose just here is better. I
imagine there are times when one will want to create multiple
namespaces with a single call to clone3(), including a time namespace.
I think this should be allowed by the API. And, otherwise, clone3()
becomes something of a second-class citizen for creating namespaces.
(I don't really get the "less invasive" argument. Implementing this is
just a piece of kernel to code to make user-space's life a bit simpler
and more consistent.)

Thanks,

Michael


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/