Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] introduce PIDFD_SELF

[Christian Brauner]

On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 03:32:25PM GMT, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 04:21:23PM GMT, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > On 2024-09-30, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 02:34:33PM GMT, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:39:49AM GMT, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 12:33:18PM GMT, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > > > > * Lorenzo Stoakes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you wish to utilise a pidfd interface to refer to the current process
> > > > > > > (from the point of view of userland - from the kernel point of view - the
> > > > > > > thread group leader), it is rather cumbersome, requiring something like:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 	int pidfd = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 	...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 	close(pidfd);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Or the equivalent call opening /proc/self. It is more convenient to use a
> > > > > > > sentinel value to indicate to an interface that accepts a pidfd that we
> > > > > > > simply wish to refer to the current process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The descriptor will refer to the current thread, not process, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > No it refers to the current process (i.e. thread group leader from kernel
> > > > > perspective). Unless you specify PIDFD_THREAD, this is the same if you did the above.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The distinction matters for pidfd_getfd if a process contains multiple
> > > > > > threads with different file descriptor tables, and probably for
> > > > > > pidfd_send_signal as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean if you did a strange set of flags to clone()? Otherwise these are
> > > > > shared right?
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, we are explicitly looking at process not thread from userland
> > > > > perspective. A PIDFD_SELF_THREAD might be possible, but this series doesn't try
> > > > > to implement that.
> > > >
> > > > Florian raises a good point. Currently we have:
> > > >
> > > > (1) int pidfd_tgid = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0);
> > > > (2) int pidfd_thread = pidfd_open(getpid(), PIDFD_THREAD);
> > > >
> > > > and this instructs:
> > > >
> > > > pidfd_send_signal()
> > > > pidfd_getfd()
> > > >
> > > > to do different things. For pidfd_send_signal() it's whether the
> > > > operation has thread-group scope or thread-scope for pidfd_send_signal()
> > > > and for pidfd_getfd() it determines the fdtable to use.
> > > >
> > > > The thing is that if you pass:
> > > >
> > > > pidfd_getfd(PDIFD_SELF)
> > > >
> > > > and you have:
> > > >
> > > > TGID
> > > >
> > > > T1 {
> > > >     clone(CLONE_THREAD)
> > > >     unshare(CLONE_FILES)
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > T2 {
> > > >     clone(CLONE_THREAD)
> > > >     unshare(CLONE_FILES)
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > You have 3 threads in the same thread-group that all have distinct file
> > > > descriptor tables from each other.
> > > >
> > > > So if T1 did:
> > > >
> > > > pidfd_getfd(PIDFD_SELF, ...)
> > > >
> > > > and we mirror the PIDTYPE_TGID behavior then T1 will very likely expect
> > > > to get the fd from its file descriptor table. IOW, its reasonable to
> > > > expect that T1 is interested in their very own resource, not someone
> > > > else's even if it is the thread-group leader.
> > > >
> > > > But what T1 will get in reality is an fd from TGID's file descriptor
> > > > table (and similar for T2).
> > > >
> > > > Iirc, yes that confusion exists already with /proc/self. But the
> > > > question is whether we should add the same confusion to the pidfd api or
> > > > whether we make PIDFD_SELF actually mean PIDTYPE_PID aka the actual
> > > > calling thread.
> > > >
> > > > My thinking is that if you have the reasonable suspicion that you're
> > > > multi-threaded and that you're interested in the thread-group resource
> > > > then you should be using:
> > > >
> > > > int pidfd = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0)
> > > >
> > > > and hand that thread-group leader pidfd around since you're interested
> > > > in another thread. But if you're really just interested in your own
> > > > resource then pidfd_open(getpid(), 0) makes no sense and you would want
> > > > PIDFD_SELF.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > I mean from my perspective, my aim is to get current->mm for
> > > process_madvise() so both work for me :) however you both raise a very good
> > > point here (sorry Florian, perhaps I was a little too dismissive as to your
> > > point, you're absolutely right).
> > >
> > > My intent was for PIDFD_SELF to simply mirror the pidfd_open(getpid(), 0)
> > > behaviour, but you and Florian make a strong case that you'd _probably_
> > > find this very confusing had you unshared in this fashion.
> > >
> > > I mean in general this confusion already exists, and is for what
> > > PIDFD_THREAD was created, but I suspect ideally if you could go back you
> > > might actually do this by default Christian + let the TGL behaviour be the
> > > optional thing?
> > >
> > > For most users this will not be an issue, but for those they'd get the same
> > > result whichever they used, but yes actually I think you're both right -
> > > PIDFD_SELF should in effect imply PIDFD_THREAD.
> >
> > Funnily enough we ran into issues with this when running Go code in runc
> > that did precisely this -- /proc/self gave you the wrong fd table in
> > very specific circumstances that were annoying to debug. For languages
> > with green-threading you can't turn off (like Go) these kinds of issues
> > pop up surprisingly often.
> 
> Yeah, damn, useful insight that such things do happen in the wild.
> 
> >
> > > We can adjust the pidfd_send_signal() call to infer the correct scope
> > > (actually nicely we can do that without any change there, by having
> > > __pidfd_get_pid() set f_flags accordingly).
> > >
> > > So TL;DR: I agree, I will respin with PIDFD_SELF referring to the thread.
> > >
> > > My question in return here then is - should we introduce PIDFD_SELF_PROCESS
> > > also (do advise if you feel this naming isn't quite right) - to provide
> > > thread group leader behaviour?
> >
> > Sorry to bike-shed, but to match /proc/self and /proc/thread-self, maybe
> > they should be called PIDFD_SELF (for tgid) and PIDFD_THREAD_SELF (for
> > current's tid)? In principle I guess users might use PIDFD_SELF by
> > accident but if we mirror the naming with /proc/{,thread-}self that
> > might not be that big of an issue?
> 
> Lol, you know I wasn't even aware /proc/thread-self existed...

Wait until you learn that /proc/$TID thread entries exist but aren't
shown when you do ls -al /proc, only when you explicitly access them.

> 
> Yeah, that actually makes sense and is consistent, though obviously the
> concern is people will reflexively use PIDFD_SELF and end up with
> potentially confusing results.
> 
> I will obviously be doing a manpage patch for this so we can spell it out
> there very clearly and also in the header - so I'd actually lean towards
> doing this myself.
> 
> Christian, Florian? Thoughts?

I think adding both would be potentially useful. How about:

#define PIDFD_SELF		-100
#define PIDFD_THREAD_GROUP	-200

This will make PIDFD_SELF mean current and PIDFD_THREAD_GROUP mean
current->pid_links[PIDTYPE_TGID]. I don't think we need to or should
mirror procfs in any way. pidfds are intended to be usable without
procfs at all.

I want to leave one comment on a bit of quirkiness in the api when we
add this. I don't consider it a big deal but it should be pointed out.

It can be useful to allow PIDFD_SELF or PIDFD_THREAD_GROUP to refer to
the calling thread even for pidfd_open() to avoid an additional getpid()
system call:

(1) pidfd_open(PIDFD_SELF, PIDFD_THREAD)
(2) pidfd_open(PIDFD_SELF, 0)

So if we allow this (Should we allow it?) then (1) is just redundant but
whathever. But (2) is at least worth discussing: Should we reject (2) on
the grounds of contradictory requests or allow it and document that it's
equivalent to pidfd_open(getpid(), PIDFD_THREAD)? It feels like the
latter would be ok.

Similar for pidfd_send_signal():

// redundant but ok:
(1) pidfd_send_signal(PIDFD_SELF,         PIDFD_SIGNAL_THREAD)

// redundant but ok:
(2) pidfd_send_signal(PIDFD_THREAD_GROUP, PIDFD_SIGNAL_THREAD_GROUP)

// weird way to spell pidfd_send_signal(PIDFD_THREAD_GROUP, 0)
(3) pidfd_send_signal(PIDFD_SELF,         PIDFD_SIGNAL_THREAD_GROUP)

// weird way to spell pidfd_send_signal(PIDFD_SELF, 0)
(4) pidfd_send_signal(PIDFD_THREAD_GROUP, PIDFD_SIGNAL_THREAD)

I think all of this is ok but does anyone else have a strong opinion?