lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Time Namespaces: CLONE_NEWTIME and clone3()?
    On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 06:11:26PM +0100, Adrian Reber wrote:
    > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:03:31AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
    > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:47:53PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
    > > > 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.)
    > >
    > > I don't particularly mind either way. If there's actual users that need
    > > to set it at clone3() time then we can extend it. So I'd like to hear
    > > what Adrian, Dmitry, and Thomas think since they are well-versed how
    > > this will be used in the wild. I'm weary of exposing a whole new uapi
    > > struct and extending clone3() without any real use-case but I'm happy to
    > > if there is!
    >
    > Re-creating a time namespace during restore via clone3() would be CRIU's
    > preferred way of doing this. If available CRIU is already using
    > clone3(), especially because of set_tid, and for the time namespace we
    > would also rely on clone3() to re-create it.
    >
    > I will provide a patch to extend clone3() to handle the creation of a
    > new time namespace.

    Great, thanks!
    Christian

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-02-18 18:27    [W:4.134 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site