From: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Matthew Bobrowski <repnop@google.com>,
amir73il@gmail.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add pidfd support to the fanotify API
Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 12:31:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210525103133.uctijrnffehlvjr3@wittgenstein> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210524084746.GB32705@quack2.suse.cz>
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:47:46AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sat 22-05-21 09:32:36, Matthew Bobrowski wrote:
> > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:40:56PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Fri 21-05-21 20:15:35, Matthew Bobrowski wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 03:55:27PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > There's one thing that I'd like to mention, and it's something in
> > > > regards to the overall approach we've taken that I'm not particularly
> > > > happy about and I'd like to hear all your thoughts. Basically, with
> > > > this approach the pidfd creation is done only once an event has been
> > > > queued and the notification worker wakes up and picks up the event
> > > > from the queue processes it. There's a subtle latency introduced when
> > > > taking such an approach which at times leads to pidfd creation
> > > > failures. As in, by the time pidfd_create() is called the struct pid
> > > > has already been reaped, which then results in FAN_NOPIDFD being
> > > > returned in the pidfd info record.
> > > >
> > > > Having said that, I'm wondering what the thoughts are on doing pidfd
> > > > creation earlier on i.e. in the event allocation stages? This way, the
> > > > struct pid is pinned earlier on and rather than FAN_NOPIDFD being
> > > > returned in the pidfd info record because the struct pid has been
> > > > already reaped, userspace application will atleast receive a valid
> > > > pidfd which can be used to check whether the process still exists or
> > > > not. I think it'll just set the expectation better from an API
> > > > perspective.
> > >
> > > Yes, there's this race. OTOH if FAN_NOPIDFD is returned, the listener can
> > > be sure the original process doesn't exist anymore. So is it useful to
> > > still receive pidfd of the dead process?
> >
> > Well, you're absolutely right. However, FWIW I was approaching this
> > from two different angles:
> >
> > 1) I wanted to keep the pattern in which the listener checks for the
> > existence/recycling of the process consistent. As in, the listener
> > would receive the pidfd, then send the pidfd a signal via
> > pidfd_send_signal() and check for -ESRCH which clearly indicates
> > that the target process has terminated.
> >
> > 2) I didn't want to mask failed pidfd creation because of early
> > process termination and other possible failures behind a single
> > FAN_NOPIDFD. IOW, if we take the -ESRCH approach above, the
> > listener can take clear corrective branches as what's to be done
> > next if a race is to have been detected, whereas simply returning
> > FAN_NOPIDFD at this stage can mean multiple things.
> >
> > Now that I've written the above and keeping in mind that we'd like to
> > refrain from doing anything in the event allocation stages, perhaps we
> > could introduce a different error code for detecting early process
> > termination while attempting to construct the info record. WDYT?
>
> Sure, I wouldn't like to overengineer it but having one special fd value for
> "process doesn't exist anymore" and another for general "creating pidfd
> failed" looks OK to me.
FAN_EPIDFD -> "creation failed"
FAN_NOPIDFD -> "no such process"
?
Christian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-25 10:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-20 2:09 [PATCH 0/5] Add pidfd support to the fanotify API Matthew Bobrowski
2021-05-20 2:10 ` [PATCH 1/5] kernel/pid.c: remove static qualifier from pidfd_create() Matthew Bobrowski
2021-05-20 2:10 ` [PATCH 2/5] kernel/pid.c: implement checks on parameters passed to pidfd_create() Matthew Bobrowski
2021-05-20 2:11 ` [PATCH 3/5] fanotify_user.c: minor cosmetic adjustments to fid labels Matthew Bobrowski
2021-05-20 2:11 ` [PATCH 4/5] fanotify/fanotify_user.c: introduce a generic info record copying function Matthew Bobrowski
2021-05-20 13:59 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-05-21 9:26 ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-05-20 2:11 ` [PATCH 5/5] fanotify: Add pidfd info record support to the fanotify API Matthew Bobrowski
2021-05-20 8:17 ` Christian Brauner
2021-05-20 13:43 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-05-21 9:21 ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-05-21 9:41 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-05-21 10:24 ` Jan Kara
2021-05-21 11:10 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-05-21 13:19 ` Jan Kara
2021-05-21 13:52 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-05-21 15:14 ` Jan Kara
2021-05-22 0:41 ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-05-22 9:01 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-05-20 13:55 ` [PATCH 0/5] Add pidfd " Jan Kara
2021-05-21 10:15 ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-05-21 10:40 ` Jan Kara
2021-05-21 23:32 ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-05-24 8:47 ` Jan Kara
2021-05-25 10:31 ` Christian Brauner [this message]
2021-05-25 23:20 ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-05-26 18:05 ` Christian Brauner
2021-05-26 22:54 ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-06-01 11:03 ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-06-01 11:46 ` Christian Brauner
2021-06-02 6:30 ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-06-02 7:18 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-06-02 8:48 ` Christian Brauner
2021-06-02 10:56 ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-06-02 12:46 ` Christian Brauner
2021-06-02 10:43 ` Matthew Bobrowski
2021-06-02 12:18 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-06-03 1:24 ` Matthew Bobrowski
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=20210525103133.uctijrnffehlvjr3@wittgenstein \
--to=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).