Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] namespacefs: Proof-of-Concept

[Yordan Karadzhov]

On 22.11.21 г. 15:44 ч., James Bottomley wrote:
> Well, no, the information may not all exist.  However, the point is we
> can add it without adding additional namespace objects.
>
> > Let's look the following case (oversimplified just to get the idea):
> > 1. The process X is a parent of the process Y and both are in
> > namespace 'A'.
> > 3. "unshare" is used to place process Y (and all its child processes)
> > in a new namespace B (A is a parent namespace of B).
> > 4. "setns" is s used to move process X in namespace C.
> >
> > How would you find the parent namespace of B?
> Actually this one's quite easy: the parent of X in your setup still has
> it.

Hmm, Isn't that true only if somehow we know that (3) happened before (4).

> However, I think you're looking to set up a scenario where the
> namespace information isn't carried by live processes and that's
> certainly possible if we unshare the namespace, bind it to a mount
> point and exit the process that unshared it.  If will exist as a bound
> namespace with no processes until it gets entered via the binding and
> when that happens the parent information can't be deduced from the
> process tree.
>
> There's another problem, that I think you don't care about but someone
> will at some point: the owning user_ns can't be deduced from the
> current tree either because it depends on the order of entry.  We fixed
> unshare so that if you enter multiple namespaces, it enters the user_ns
> first so the latter is always the owning namespace, but if you enter
> the rest of the namespaces first via one unshare then unshare the
> user_ns second, that won't be true.
>
> Neither of the above actually matter for docker like containers because
> that's not the way the orchestration system works (it doesn't use mount
> bindings or the user_ns) but one day, hopefully, it might.
>
> > Again, using your arguments, I can reformulate the problem statement
> > this way: a userspace program is well instrumented
> > to create an arbitrary complex tree of namespaces. In the same time,
> > the only place where the information about the
> > created structure can be retrieved is in the userspace program
> > itself. And when we have multiple userspace programs
> > adding to the namespaces tree, the global picture gets impossible to
> > recover.
> So figure out what's missing in the /proc tree and propose adding it.
> The interface isn't immutable it's just that what exists today is an
> ABI and can't be altered.  I think this is the last time we realised we
> needed to add missing information in/proc/<pid>/ns:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=eaa0d190bfe1ed891b814a52712dcd852554cb08
>
> So you can use that as the pattern.

OK, if everybody agrees that adding extra information to /proc is the right way to go, we will be happy to try 
developing another PoC that implements this approach.

Thank you very much for all your help!
Yordan

> James