Re: [PATCH 00/23] proc: Introduce /proc/namespaces/ directory to expose namespaces lineary

[Kirill Tkhai]

On 31.07.2020 01:13, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>> On 30.07.2020 17:34, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> Currently, there is no a way to list or iterate all or subset of namespaces
>>>> in the system. Some namespaces are exposed in /proc/[pid]/ns/ directories,
>>>> but some also may be as open files, which are not attached to a process.
>>>> When a namespace open fd is sent over unix socket and then closed, it is
>>>> impossible to know whether the namespace exists or not.
>>>>
>>>> Also, even if namespace is exposed as attached to a process or as open file,
>>>> iteration over /proc/*/ns/* or /proc/*/fd/* namespaces is not fast, because
>>>> this multiplies at tasks and fds number.
>>>
>>> I am very dubious about this.
>>>
>>> I have been avoiding exactly this kind of interface because it can
>>> create rather fundamental problems with checkpoint restart.
>>
>> restart/restore :)
>>
>>> You do have some filtering and the filtering is not based on current.
>>> Which is good.
>>>
>>> A view that is relative to a user namespace might be ok.    It almost
>>> certainly does better as it's own little filesystem than as an extension
>>> to proc though.
>>>
>>> The big thing we want to ensure is that if you migrate you can restore
>>> everything.  I don't see how you will be able to restore these files
>>> after migration.  Anything like this without having a complete
>>> checkpoint/restore story is a non-starter.
>>
>> There is no difference between files in /proc/namespaces/ directory and /proc/[pid]/ns/.
>>
>> CRIU can restore open files in /proc/[pid]/ns, the same will be with /proc/namespaces/ files.
>> As a person who worked deeply for pid_ns and user_ns support in CRIU, I don't see any
>> problem here.
> 
> An obvious diffference is that you are adding the inode to the inode to
> the file name.  Which means that now you really do have to preserve the
> inode numbers during process migration.
>
> Which means now we have to do all of the work to make inode number
> restoration possible.  Which means now we need to have multiple
> instances of nsfs so that we can restore inode numbers.
> 
> I think this is still possible but we have been delaying figuring out
> how to restore inode numbers long enough that may be actual technical
> problems making it happen.

Yeah, this matters. But it looks like here is not a dead end. We just need
change the names the namespaces are exported to particular fs and to support
rename().

Before introduction a principally new filesystem type for this, can't
this be solved in current /proc?

Alexey, does rename() is prohibited for /proc fs?
 
> Now maybe CRIU can handle the names of the files changing during
> migration but you have just increased the level of difficulty for doing
> that.
> 
>> If you have a specific worries about, let's discuss them.
> 
> I was asking and I am asking that it be described in the patch
> description how a container using this feature can be migrated
> from one machine to another.  This code is so close to being problematic
> that we need be very careful we don't fundamentally break CRIU while
> trying to make it's job simpler and easier.
> 
>> CC: Pavel Tikhomirov CRIU maintainer, who knows everything about namespaces C/R.
>>  
>>> Further by not going through the processes it looks like you are
>>> bypassing the existing permission checks.  Which has the potential
>>> to allow someone to use a namespace who would not be able to otherwise.
>>
>> I agree, and I wrote to Christian, that permissions should be more strict.
>> This just should be formalized. Let's discuss this.
>>
>>> So I think this goes one step too far but I am willing to be persuaded
>>> otherwise.
>>>
> 
> Eric
>