[PATCH v4 2/5] pid: Add PIDFD_IOCTL_GETFD to fetch file descriptors from processes
arnd at arndb.de
Sat Dec 21 13:53:32 UTC 2019
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 4:35 AM Aleksa Sarai <cyphar at cyphar.com> wrote:
> On 2019-12-19, Sargun Dhillon <sargun at sargun.me> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 2:35 AM Christian Brauner
> > <christian.brauner at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > > I guess this is the remaining question we should settle, i.e. what do we
> > > prefer.
> > > I still think that adding a new syscall for this seems a bit rich. On
> > > the other hand it seems that a lot more people agree that using a
> > > dedicated syscall instead of an ioctl is the correct way; especially
> > > when it touches core kernel functionality. I mean that was one of the
> > > takeaways from the pidfd API ioctl-vs-syscall discussion.
> > >
> > > A syscall is nicer especially for core-kernel code like this.
> > > So I guess the only way to find out is to try the syscall approach and
> > > either get yelled and switch to an ioctl() or have it accepted.
> > >
> > > What does everyone else think? Arnd, still in favor of a syscall I take
> > > it. Oleg, you had suggested a syscall too, right? Florian, any
> > > thoughts/worries on/about this from the glibc side?
> > >
> > > Christian
> > My feelings towards this are that syscalls might pose a problem if we
> > ever want to extend this API. Of course we can have a reserved
> > "flags" field, and populate it later, but what if we turn out to need
> > a proper struct? I already know we're going to want to add one
> > around cgroup metadata (net_cls), and likely we'll want to add
> > a "steal" flag as well. As Arnd mentioned earlier, this is trivial to
> > fix in a traditional ioctl environment, as ioctls are "cheap". How
> > do we feel about potentially adding a pidfd_getfd2? Or are we
> > confident that reserved flags will save us?
> If we end up making this a syscall, then we can re-use the
> copy_struct_from_user() API to make it both extensible and compatible in
> both directions. I wasn't aware that this was frowned upon for ioctls
> (sorry for the extra work) but there are several syscalls which use this
> model for extendability (clone3, openat2, sched_setattr,
> perf_events_open) so there shouldn't be any such complaints for a
> syscall which is extensible.
I would still not do it for syscalls, although for other reasons:
- in an ioctl, it's better to come up with a new command code if you
have a larger structure
- in a system call, it's best to pass all arguments as individual
registers, the only time we use indirect data structures is when there
are more than six arguments.
More information about the Containers