Michael Kerrisk wrote:
Helllo Janak,
[...]
While writing this page, I came up with a number of
questions about the design of this interface:
1. Your original documentation said:
The flags argument specifies one or bitwise-or'ed of
several of the following constants.
However, my reading of the code (I have not yet tested the
syscall) is that 'flags' can be zero. I don't see any problem
with that, but it is in conflict with the statement above,
so it may be worth confirming: what is intended behaviour?
is 'flags' allowed to be zero?
Yes, I agree that the intended behavior of flags == 0 should be
clarified. If flags is zero, then the system call is basically
a no-op.
[...]
Good. I assumed that was the case.
2. Reading the code and your documentation, I see that CLONE_VM
implies CLONE_SIGHAND. Since CLONE_SIGHAND is not implemented
(i.e., results in an EINVAL error), I take it that this means
that at the moment CLONE_VM will not work (i.e., will result
in EINVAL). Is this correct? If so, I will note this in
the man page.
Actually, CLONE_SIGHAND implies CLONE_VM and not the
otherway around. Currently CLONE_VM is supported, as long as
singnal handlers are not being shared. That is, if you created the
process using clone(CLONE_VM), which kept signal handlers
different, then you can unshare VM using unshare(CLONE_VM).
Maybe I'm being dense, and as I said I haven't actually
tested the interface, but your Documentation/unshare.txt
(7.2) says the opposite:
If CLONE_VM is set, force CLONE_SIGHAND.
and the code in check_unshare_flags() seems to agree:
/*
* If unsharing vm, we must also unshare signal handlers
*/
if (*flags_ptr & CLONE_VM)
*flags_ptr |= CLONE)SIGHAND;
What am I missing?
Sorry, I think I have caused confusion by my use of "implies" and
"forcing of flags". I am easily confused by this as well, so let me see
if I can clarify with a picture. I will double check the documentation
file to make sure I am using correct and unambiguous words.
Consider the following 4 cases.
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SH1 SH2 SH1 SH2 SH SH
| | \ / || / \
| | \ / || / \
VM1 VM2 VM VM VM1 VM2
ok ok ok NOT ok
You can achieve (1), (2) or (3) using clone(), but clone()
will not let you do (4). What we want to make sure is
that we don't endup like (4) using unshare. unshare
makes sure that if you are trying to unshare vm, AND
you were sharing signal handlers (case 3) before,
then it won't allow that operation. However, if you
were like (2), then you can unshare vm and end up
like (1), which is allowed. So the forcing of sighand
flag makes sure that you check for case (2) or (3).
3. The naming of the 'flags' bits is inconsistent. In your
documentation you note:
unshare reverses sharing that was done using clone(2) system
call, so unshare should have a similar interface as clone(2).
That is, since flags in clone(int flags, void *stack)
specifies what should be shared, similar flags in
unshare(int flags) should specify what should be unshared.
Unfortunately, this may appear to invert the meaning of the
flags from the way they are used in clone(2). However,
there was no easy solution that was less confusing and that
allowed incremental context unsharing in future without an
ABI change.
The problem is that the flags don't simply reverse the meanings
of the clone() flags of the same name: they do it inconsistently.
That is, CLONE_FS, CLONE_FILES, and CLONE_VM *reverse* the
effects of the clone() flags of the same name, but CLONE_NEWNS
*has the same meaning* as the clone() flag of the same name.
If *all* of the flags were simply reversed, that would be
a little strange, but comprehensible; but the fact that one of
them is not reversed is very confusing for users of the
interface.
An idea: why not define a new set of flags for unshare()
which are synonyms of the clone() flags, but make their
purpose more obvious to the user, i.e., something like
the following:
#define UNSHARE_VM CLONE_VM
#define UNSHARE_FS CLONE_FS
#define UNSHARE_FILES CLONE_FILES
#define UNSHARE_NS CLONE_NEWNS
etc.
This would avoid confusion for the interface user.
(Yes, I realize that this could be done in glibc, but why
make the kernel and glibc definitions differ?)
I agree that use of clone flags can be confusing. At least a couple of
folks pointed that out when I posted the patch. The issues was even
raised when unshare was proposed few years back on lkml. Some
source of confusion is the special status of CLONE_NEWNS. Because
namespaces are shared by default with fork/clone, it is different than
other CLONE_* flags. That's probably why it was called CLONE_NEWNS
and not CLONE_NS.
Yes, most likely.
In the original discussion in Aug'00, Linus
said that "it makes sense that a unshare(CLONE_FILES) basically
_undoes_ the sharing of clone(CLONE_FILES)"
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0008.3/0662.html
So I decided to follow that as a guidance for unshare interface.
Yes, but when Linus made that statement (Aug 2000), there
was no CLONE_NEWNS (it arrived in 2.4.19, Aug 2002). So
the inconsistency that I'm highlighting didn't exist back
then. As I said above: if *all* of the flags were simply
reversed, that would be comprehensible; but the fact that
one of them is not reversed is inconsistent. This &will*
confuse people in userland, and it seems quite
unnecessary to do that. Please consider this point further.
Thanks for clarification. I didn't check that namespaces cames after
that original discussion. I still think that the confusion is not acute
enough to warrent addition of more flags, but will run it by some
folks to see what they think.
4. Would it not be wise to include a check of the following form
at the entry to sys_unshare():
if (flags & ~(CLONE_FS | CLONE_FILES | CLONE_VM |
CLONE_NEWNS | CLONE_SYSVSEM | CLONE_THREAD))
return -EINVAL;
This future-proofs the interface against applications
that try to specify extraneous bits in 'flags': if those
bits happen to become meaningful in the future, then the
application behavior would silently change. Adding this
check now prevents applications trying to use those bits
until such a time as they have meaning.
I did have a similar check in the first incarnation of the patch. It was
pointed out, correctly, that it is better to allow all flags so we can
incrementally add new unshare functionality while not making
any ABI changes. unshare follows clone here, which also does not
check for extraneous bits in flags.
I guess I need educating here. Several other system calls
do include such checks:
mm/mlock.c: mlockall(2):
if (!flags || (flags & ~(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_FUTURE)))
mm/mprotect.c: mprotect(2):
if (prot & ~(PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC | PROT_SEM))
mm/msync.c: msync(2):
if (flags & ~(MS_ASYNC | MS_INVALIDATE | MS_SYNC))
mm/mremap.c: mremap(2):
if (flags & ~(MREMAP_FIXED | MREMAP_MAYMOVE))
mm/mempolicy.c: mbind(2):
if ((flags & ~(unsigned long)(MPOL_MF_STRICT)) || mode > MPOL_MAX)
mm/mempolicy.c: get_mempolicy(2):
if (flags & ~(unsigned long)(MPOL_F_NODE|MPOL_F_ADDR))
What distinguishes unshare() (and clone()) from these?
I haven't looked at your examples in detail, but basically clone and
unshare work on pieces of process context. It is quite possible that
in future there may be new pieces added to the process context
resulting in new flags. You want to make sure that you can
incrementally add functionality for sharing and unsharing of
new flags.
I guess I'm unclear too about this (requoted) text
It was
pointed out, correctly, that it is better to allow all flags so we can
incrementally add new unshare functionality while not making
any ABI changes.
If one restricts the range of flags that are available now
(prevents userland from trying to use them), and then
permits additional flags later, then from the point of
view of the old userland apps, there has been no ABI change.
What am I missing here?
I think the ABI change may occur if the new flag that gets added,
somehow interacts with an existing flag (just like signal handlers and
vm) or has a different default behavior (like namespace). I think
that's why clone and unshare (which mimics the clone interface)
do not check for unimplmented flags.
-Janak
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
