Linux-Fsdevel Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Matthew Bobrowski <repnop@google.com>,
	Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
	Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fanotify: Add pidfd support to the fanotify API
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:00:27 +0200
Message-ID: <20210421100027.GP8706@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxhmJgbSbk_w_gsYg+zLb9GJv6_oGrmfPiNEYao_U3z9=Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed 21-04-21 12:29:14, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:04 AM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue 20-04-21 12:36:59, Matthew Bobrowski wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 05:02:33PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > > A general question about struct fanotify_event_metadata and its
> > > > extensibility model:
> > > > looking through the code it seems that this struct is read via
> > > > fanotify_rad(). So the user is expected to supply a buffer with at least
> > > >
> > > > #define FAN_EVENT_METADATA_LEN (sizeof(struct fanotify_event_metadata))
> > > >
> > > > bytes. In addition you can return the info to the user about how many
> > > > bytes the kernel has written from fanotify_read().
> > > >
> > > > So afaict extending fanotify_event_metadata should be _fairly_
> > > > straightforward, right? It would essentially the complement to
> > > > copy_struct_from_user() which Aleksa and I added (1 or 2 years ago)
> > > > which deals with user->kernel and you're dealing with kernel->user:
> > > > - If the user supplied a buffer smaller than the minimum known struct
> > > >   size -> reject.
> > > > - If the user supplied a buffer < smaller than what the current kernel
> > > >   supports -> copy only what userspace knows about, and return the size
> > > >   userspace knows about.
> > > > - If the user supplied a buffer that is larger than what the current
> > > >   kernel knows about -> copy only what the kernel knows about, zero the
> > > >   rest, and return the kernel size.
> > > >
> > > > Extension should then be fairly straightforward (64bit aligned
> > > > increments)?
> > >
> > > You'd think that it's fairly straightforward, but I have a feeling
> > > that the whole fanotify_event_metadata extensibility discussion and
> > > the current limitation to do so revolves around whether it can be
> > > achieved in a way which can guarantee that no userspace applications
> > > would break. I think the answer to this is that there's no guarantee
> > > because of <<reasons>>, so the decision to extend fanotify's feature
> > > set was done via other means i.e. introduction of additional
> > > structures.
> >
> > There's no real problem extending fanotify_event_metadata. We already have
> > multiple extended version of that structure in use (see e.g. FAN_REPORT_FID
> > flag and its effect, extended versions of the structure in
> > include/uapi/linux/fanotify.h). The key for backward compatibility is to
> > create extended struct only when explicitely requested by a flag when
> > creating notification group - and that would be the case here -
> > FAN_REPORT_PIDFD or how you called it. It is just that extending the
> > structure means adding 8 bytes to each event and parsing extended structure
> > is more cumbersome than just fetching s32 from a well known location.
> >
> > On the other hand extended structure is self-describing (i.e., you can tell
> > the meaning of all the fields just from the event you receive) while
> > reusing 'pid' field means that you have to know how the notification group
> > was created (whether FAN_REPORT_PIDFD was used or not) to be able to
> > interpret the contents of the event. Actually I think the self-describing
> > feature of fanotify event stream is useful (e.g. when application manages
> > multiple fanotify groups or when fanotify group descriptors are passed
> > among processes) so now I'm more leaning towards using the extended
> > structure instead of reusing 'pid' as Christian suggests. I'm sorry for the
> > confusion.
> >
> 
> But there is a middle path option.
> The event metadata can be self described without extending it:
> 
>  struct fanotify_event_metadata {
>         __u32 event_len;
>         __u8 vers;
> -       __u8 reserved;
> +#define FANOTIFY_METADATA_FLAG_PIDFD   1
> +       __u8 flags;
>         __u16 metadata_len;
>         __aligned_u64 mask;
>         __s32 fd;

Well, yes, but do we want another way to describe what fanotify_event_metadata
actually contains? I don't think parsing extended event information is that
bad to make changes like this worth it...

								Honza

-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

  reply index

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-15 23:21 [PATCH 0/2] fanotify: Adding " Matthew Bobrowski
2021-04-15 23:22 ` [PATCH 1/2] pidfd_create(): remove static qualifier and declare pidfd_create() in linux/pid.h Matthew Bobrowski
2021-04-19 10:13   ` Jan Kara
2021-04-19 12:50   ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-20  0:17     ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-04-15 23:22 ` [PATCH 2/2] fanotify: Add pidfd support to the fanotify API Matthew Bobrowski
2021-04-16  6:27   ` Amir Goldstein
2021-04-16  7:05     ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-04-16  7:53       ` Amir Goldstein
2021-04-16  8:08         ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-04-19 13:02     ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-19 10:21   ` Jan Kara
2021-04-20  1:35     ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-04-19 13:20   ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-19 13:53     ` Amir Goldstein
2021-04-19 14:44       ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-19 13:55     ` Jan Kara
2021-04-19 15:02       ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-20  2:36         ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-04-21  8:04           ` Jan Kara
2021-04-21  9:29             ` Amir Goldstein
2021-04-21 10:00               ` Jan Kara [this message]
2021-04-21 10:12                 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-04-21 13:48                   ` Jan Kara
2021-04-21 14:46                     ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-22 23:06             ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-04-23  7:39               ` Amir Goldstein
2021-04-23  8:02                 ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-04-23  8:14                   ` Amir Goldstein
2021-04-26 10:26                     ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-04-26 11:11                       ` Amir Goldstein
2021-04-27  3:35                         ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-04-27  5:14                           ` Amir Goldstein
2021-04-28 22:53                             ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-04-19 12:34 ` [PATCH 0/2] fanotify: Adding " Christian Brauner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210421100027.GP8706@quack2.suse.cz \
    --to=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
    --cc=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=repnop@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Linux-Fsdevel Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/0 linux-fsdevel/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-fsdevel linux-fsdevel/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel \
		linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-fsdevel

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git