Re: [PATCH 0/1] ns: introduce proc_get_ns_by_fd()

[Eric W. Biederman]

Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 09/28, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > Honestly, I do not really like the new helper... I understand this
>> > is subjective, so I won't insist. But how about 1/1? We do not need
>> > fd/file at all. With this patch your sys_getvpid() can just use
>> > proc_get_ns_by_fd(fd, CLONE_NEWPID) and put_pid_ns().
>> >
>> > Eric, what do you think?
>>
>> At some level I don't care this is not exposed to userspace.
>
> I agree, this is minor. But you know, the kernel is already complicated
> too much, we should try to simplify/cleanup everything we can ;)
>
>> Of the existing uses several of them sleep, which unfortunately means we
>> can not use rcu locking for everything.  The network namespace ones wind
>> up taking a reference to struct net because the have the legacy pid case
>> to deal with. Which makes we can not use fdget for all callers either.
>
> And that is why 1/1 adds proc_get_ns_by_fd/get_type which can also be used
> by the network namespace.
>
>> For this translate_pid rcu locking is sufficient, rcu locking is easy
>> and doing any more than rcu locking just seems silly.  So let me
>> respectfully suggest.
>>
>> struct ns_common *ns_by_fd_rcu(int fd, int type)
>> {
>> 	struct files_struct *files = current->files;
>> 	struct file *file;
>> 	struct ns_common *ns;
>> 	void *ret;
>>
>> 	file = fcheck_files(files, fd);
>>         if (!file)
>> 		return ERR_PTR(-EBADF);
>>
>> 	if (file->f_mode & FMODE_PATH)
>> 		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>
>> 	if (file->f_op != &ns_file_operations)
>>         	return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>
>> 	ns = get_proc_ns(file_inode(file));
>> 	if (ns->ops->type != type)
>> 		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>
>> 	return ns;
>> }
>
> OK, I won't insist, this too looks better to me than proc_ns_fdget(&fd_ref).
>
> And in any case fcheck_files() makes more sense than fdget(), somehow I did
> not think about this when I sent 1/1.
>
> Hmm. and after the quick look at cleanup_net() I can't understand whether
> get_net_ns_by_fd() can use ns_by_fd_rcu() + maybe_get_net(to_net_ns()) or
> not... Can it?

Some of those places need a reference that allows them to sleep, and the
code is shared with the legacy pid case so with an addition of get_net
we can use ns_by_fd_rcu().   There are cases like setns that could
use ns_by_fd_rcu() with code reording.

We can implement get_net_ns_by_fd as:
struct net *get_net_ns_by_fd(int fd)
{
        struct net *net;

	rcu_read_lock();
	net = net_ns_by_fd_rcu(fd);
        if (!IS_ERR(net))
        	get_net(net);
        rcu_read_unlock();

	return net;
}

Which means we can achieve code sharing with the pure rcu version
as a base.

If the networking code did not have the legacy pid case to handle I
would want to do something with struct fd, as the file descriptor
already keeps the struct net reference alive and struct fd allows
for sleeping.

Eric

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/