OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH] An attempt to have an unlimitedly extendable sys_clone
Re: [PATCH] An attempt to have an unlimitedly extendable sys_clone [message #26136 is a reply to message #26102] Wed, 16 January 2008 07:37 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Pavel Emelianov is currently offline  Pavel Emelianov
Messages: 1149
Registered: September 2006
Senior Member
Oren Laadan wrote:
> 
> Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>> We have one bit in the clone_flags left, so we won't be
>> able to create more namespaces after we make it busy.
>> Besides, for checkpoint/restart jobs we might want to
>> create tasks with pre-defined pids (virtual of course).
>> What else might be required from clone() - nobody knows.
>>
>> This is an attempt to create a extendable API for clone.
>>
>> I use the last bit in the clone_flags for CLONE_NEWCLONE.
> 
> how about "CLONE_EXTEND" ?

I don't mind. The names I selected are not perfect. Better
ones are always welcome.

>> When set it will denote that the child_tidptr is not a
>> pointer on the tid storage, but the pointer on the struct
>> long_clone_struct which currently looks like this:
>>
>> struct long_clone_arg {
>> 	int size;
>> };
> 
> how about "ext_clone_arg" ?
> 
> (both suggestion make the use more explicit and are more
> consistent with each other; but definitely a nit ...)

"Extended" sounds good, thanks.

>> When we want to add a new argument for clone we just put
>> it *at the end of this structure* and adjust the size.
>> The binary compatibility with older long_clone_arg-s is
>> facilitated with the clone_arg_has() macro.
> 
> Since the same kernel version (maj/min) can be compiled with
> different config options, need to ensure that not only are
> args added at the end, but also without #if/#ifdef around
> them.

Sure, but since this struct is declared outside the 
#ifdef __KERNEL__ then the internal ifdefs will look
strange. But I will mention this in comment.

> That also means, that if a feature isn't compile (but the
> size argument remains larger because of fields required for
> other arguments, a user program currently has no way to
> figure out what's available and supported by the kernel.
> (see also comment below about the code).
> 
>> Sure, we lose the ability to clone tasks with extended
>> argument and the CLONE_CHILD_SETTID/CLEARTID, but do we
>> really need this?
> 
> not necessarily. the relevant field can be added (even
> already now) inside long_clone_arg, e.g. child_tidptr;
> so if the extra bit is set, _and_ ....CLEARTID is set,
> the pointer is found inside the extra struct.
> 
> in other words we don't give up the functionality.
> 
>> The same thing is about to be done for unshare - we can
>> add the second argument for it and iff the CLONE_NEWCLONE
>> is specified - try to use it. Binary compatibility with
>> the old ushare will be kept.
>>
>> The new argument is pulled up to the create_new_namespaces
>> so that later we can easily use it w/o sending additional
>> patches.
>>
>> This is a final, but a pre-review patch for sys_clone()
>> that I plan to send to Andrew before we go on developing
>> new namespaces.
>>
>> Made against 2.6.24-rc5-mm1.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openzv.org>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/nsproxy.h b/include/linux/nsproxy.h
>> index 0e66b57..e01de56 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/nsproxy.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/nsproxy.h
>> @@ -62,7 +62,8 @@ static inline struct nsproxy *task_nsproxy(struct task_struct *tsk)
>>  	return rcu_dereference(tsk->nsproxy);
>>  }
>>  
>> -int copy_namespaces(unsigned long flags, struct task_struct *tsk);
>> +int copy_namespaces(unsigned long flags, struct task_struct *tsk,
>> +		struct long_clone_arg *carg);
>>  void exit_task_namespaces(struct task_struct *tsk);
>>  void switch_task_namespaces(struct task_struct *tsk, struct nsproxy *new);
>>  void free_nsproxy(struct nsproxy *ns);
>> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
>> index e4d2a82..585a2b4 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>> @@ -27,6 +27,23 @@
>>  #define CLONE_NEWUSER		0x10000000	/* New user namespace */
>>  #define CLONE_NEWPID		0x20000000	/* New pid namespace */
>>  #define CLONE_NEWNET		0x40000000	/* New network namespace */
>> +#define CLONE_NEWCLONE		0x80000000	/* Has an long_clone_arg */
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * If the CLONE_NEWCLONE argument is specified, then the
>> + * child_tidptr is expected to point to the struct long_clone_arg.
>> + *
>> + * This structure has a variable size, which is to be recorded
>> + * in the size member. All other members a to be put after this.
>> + * Never ... No. Always add new members only at its tail.
>> + *
>> + * The clone_arg_has() macro is responsible for checking whether
>> + * the given arg has the desired member.
>> + */
>> +
>> +struct long_clone_arg {
>> +	int size;
>> +};
>>  
>>  /*
>>   * Scheduling policies
>> @@ -40,6 +57,11 @@
>>  
>>  #ifdef __KERNEL__
>>  
>> +#define clone_arg_has(arg, member)	({ \
>> +		struct long_clone_arg *__carg = arg; \
>> +		(__carg->size >= offsetof(struct long_clone_arg, member) + \
>> +		 			sizeof(__carg->member)); })
>> +
>>  struct sched_param {
>>  	int sched_priority;
>>  };
>> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
>> index 8b558b7..f5895fc 100644
>> --- a/kernel/fork.c
>> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
>> @@ -967,6 +967,29 @@ static void rt_mutex_init_task(struct task_struct *p)
>>  #endif
>>  }
>>  
>> +static struct long_clone_arg *get_long_clone_arg(int __user *child_tidptr)
>> +{
>> +	int size;
>> +	struct long_clone_arg *carg;
>> +
>> +	if (get_user(size, child_tidptr))
>> +		return ERR_PTR(-EFAULT);
>> +
>> +	if (size > sizeof(struct long_clone_arg))
>> +		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> 
> what about:
> 	if (size < sizeof(int))
> 		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);

Hm... Makes sense.

> I wonder how a caller could figure out what _is_ supported by the
> kernel on which it is running - that is, what is the "perfect" value
> for the "size" field (and whether that is necessary ?)
> For instance, the kernel could "put_user(sizeof(...), child_tidptr)"
> if the original size given by the caller is 0.

You mean use the clone to get what the kernel support? I don't
think this is good.

What would the program need to find out what the kernel support
at run-time? If we want to create some extra namespace and the
kernel returns -EINVAL then there's no need to restart the syscall
w/o asking it to clone this namespace. I think that once user 
needs some namespace it finds out which kernel version he needs 
and goes on.

>> +
>> +	carg = kzalloc(sizeof(struct long_clone_arg), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	if (carg == NULL)
>> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>> +
>> +	if (copy_from_user(carg, child_tidptr, size)) {
>> +		kfree(carg);
>> +		return ERR_PTR(-EFAULT);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return carg;
>> +}
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * This creates a new process as a copy of the old one,
>>   * but does not actually start it yet.
>> @@ -985,6 +1008,7 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(unsigned long clone_flags,
>>  	int retval;
>>  	struct task_struct *p;
>>  	int cgroup_callbacks_done = 0;
>> +	struct long_clone_arg *carg = NULL;
>>  
>>  	if ((clone_flags & (CLONE_NEWNS|CLONE_FS)) == (CLONE_NEWNS|CLONE_FS))
>>  		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> @@ -1004,6 +1028,11 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(unsigned long clone_flags,
>>  	if ((clone_flags & CLONE_SIGHAND) && !(clone_flags & CLONE_VM))
>>  		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>  
>> +	if ((clone_flags & CLONE_NEWCLONE) &&
>> +			(clone_flags & (CLONE_CHILD_SETTID | 
>> +					CLONE_CHILD_CLEARTID)))
>> +		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> +
>>  	retval = security_task_create(clone_flags);
>>  	if (retval)
>>  		goto fork_out;
>> @@ -1132,8 +1161,15 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(unsigned long clone_flags,
>>  	/* Perform scheduler related setup. Assign this task to a CPU. */
>>  	sched_fork(p, clone_flags);
>>  
>> +	if (clone_flags & CLONE_NEWCLONE) {
>> +		carg = get_long_clone_arg(child_tidptr);
>> +		retval = PTR_ERR(carg);
>> +		if (IS_ERR(carg))
>> +			goto bad_fork_cleanup_policy;
>> +	}
>> +
>>  	if ((retval = security_task_alloc(p)))
>> -		goto bad_fork_cleanup_policy;
>> +		goto bad_fork_cleanup_carg;
>>  	if ((retval = audit_alloc(p)))
>>  		goto bad_fork_cleanup_security;
>>  	/* copy all the process information */
>> @@ -1151,7 +1187,7 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(unsigned long clone_flags,
>>  		goto bad_fork_cleanup_signal;
>>  	if ((retval = copy_keys(clone_flags, p)))
>>  		goto bad_fork_cleanup_mm;
>> -	if ((retval = copy_namespaces(clone_flags, p)))
>> +	if ((retval = copy_namespaces(clone_flags, p, carg)))
>>  		goto bad_fork_cleanup_keys;
>>  	retval = copy_thread(0, clone_flags, stack_start, stack_size, p, regs);
>>  	if (retval)
>> @@ -1345,6 +1381,8 @@ bad_fork_cleanup_audit:
>>  	audit_free(p);
>>  bad_fork_cleanup_security:
>>  	security_task_free(p);
>> +bad_fork_cleanup_carg:
>> +	kfree(carg);
>>  bad_fork_cleanup_policy:
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
>>  	mpol_free(p->
...

 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: A consideration on memory controller.
Next Topic: [patch 00/10] mount ownership and unprivileged mount syscall (v7)
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Aug 28 19:06:29 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.15879 seconds