lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: pidfd design
    On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 05:24:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
    > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 5:12 PM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
    > >
    > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 05:00:17PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
    > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 4:45 PM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 04:42:14PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
    > > > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 1:23 PM Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com> wrote:
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 1:14 PM Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 8:44 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > > One ioctl on procfs roots to translate pidfds into that procfs,
    > > > > > > > subject to both the normal lookup permission checks and only working
    > > > > > > > if the pidfd has a translation into the procfs:
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > int proc_root_fd = open("/proc", O_RDONLY);
    > > > > > > > int proc_dir_fd = ioctl(proc_root_fd, PROC_PIDFD_TO_PROCFSFD, pidfd);
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > And one ioctl on procfs directories to translate from PGIDs and PIDs to pidfds:
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > int proc_pgid_fd = open("/proc/self", O_RDONLY);
    > > > > > > > int self_pg_pidfd = ioctl(proc_pgid_fd, PROC_PROCFSFD_TO_PIDFD, 0);
    > > > > > > > int proc_pid_fd = open("/proc/thread-self", O_RDONLY);
    > > > > > > > int self_p_pidfd = ioctl(proc_pid_fd, PROC_PROCFSFD_TO_PIDFD, 0);
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > This sounds okay to me. Or we could make it so that a procfs
    > > > > > directory fd also works as a pidfd, but that seems more likely to be
    > > > > > problematic than just allowing two-way translation like this
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > And then, as you proposed, the new sys_clone() can just return a
    > > > > > > > pidfd, and you can convert it into a procfs fd yourself if you want.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > I think that's the consensus we reached on the other thread. The
    > > > > > > O_DIRECTORY open on /proc/self/fd/mypidfd seems like it'd work well
    > > > > > > enough.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I must have missed this particular email.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > IMO, if /proc/self/fd/mypidfd allows O_DIRECTORY open to work, then it
    > > > > > really ought to do function just like /proc/self/fd/mypidfd/. and
    > > > > > /proc/self/fd/mypidfd/status should work. And these latter two
    > > > > > options seem nutty.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Also, this O_DIRECTORY thing is missing the entire point of the ioctl
    > > > > > interface -- it doesn't require procfs access.
    > > > >
    > > > > The other option was to encode the pid in the callers pid namespace into
    > > > > the pidfd's fdinfo so that you can parse it out and open /proc/<pid>.
    > > > > You'd just need an event on the pidfd to tell you when the process has
    > > > > died. Jonathan and I just discussed this.
    > > >
    > > > From an application developer's POV, the ioctl interface sounds much,
    > > > much nicer.
    > >
    > > Some people are strongly against ioctl()s some don't. I'm not against
    > > them so both options are fine with me if people can agree.
    > >
    >
    > There are certainly non-ioctl equivalents that are functionally
    > equivalent. For example, there could be a syscall
    > procfs_open_pidfd(procfs_fd, pid_fd). I personally don't really mind
    > ioctl() when it's really an operation on an fd.

    I totally missed that mail somehow.
    Yes, I agree that an ioctl() makes sense for that.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2019-03-28 10:22    [W:2.101 / U:0.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site