On 06.08.2020 11:05, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 01:03:17PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> On 31.07.2020 01:13, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> Kirill Tkhai <ktk...@virtuozzo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 30.07.2020 17:34, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>>> Kirill Tkhai <ktk...@virtuozzo.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently, there is no a way to list or iterate all or subset of
>>>>>> namespaces
>>>>>> in the system. Some namespaces are exposed in /proc/[pid]/ns/
>>>>>> directories,
>>>>>> but some also may be as open files, which are not attached to a process.
>>>>>> When a namespace open fd is sent over unix socket and then closed, it is
>>>>>> impossible to know whether the namespace exists or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, even if namespace is exposed as attached to a process or as open
>>>>>> file,
>>>>>> iteration over /proc/*/ns/* or /proc/*/fd/* namespaces is not fast,
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> this multiplies at tasks and fds number.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am very dubious about this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been avoiding exactly this kind of interface because it can
>>>>> create rather fundamental problems with checkpoint restart.
>>>>
>>>> restart/restore :)
>>>>
>>>>> You do have some filtering and the filtering is not based on current.
>>>>> Which is good.
>>>>>
>>>>> A view that is relative to a user namespace might be ok. It almost
>>>>> certainly does better as it's own little filesystem than as an extension
>>>>> to proc though.
>>>>>
>>>>> The big thing we want to ensure is that if you migrate you can restore
>>>>> everything. I don't see how you will be able to restore these files
>>>>> after migration. Anything like this without having a complete
>>>>> checkpoint/restore story is a non-starter.
>>>>
>>>> There is no difference between files in /proc/namespaces/ directory and
>>>> /proc/[pid]/ns/.
>>>>
>>>> CRIU can restore open files in /proc/[pid]/ns, the same will be with
>>>> /proc/namespaces/ files.
>>>> As a person who worked deeply for pid_ns and user_ns support in CRIU, I
>>>> don't see any
>>>> problem here.
>>>
>>> An obvious diffference is that you are adding the inode to the inode to
>>> the file name. Which means that now you really do have to preserve the
>>> inode numbers during process migration.
>>>
>>> Which means now we have to do all of the work to make inode number
>>> restoration possible. Which means now we need to have multiple
>>> instances of nsfs so that we can restore inode numbers.
>>>
>>> I think this is still possible but we have been delaying figuring out
>>> how to restore inode numbers long enough that may be actual technical
>>> problems making it happen.
>>
>> Yeah, this matters. But it looks like here is not a dead end. We just need
>> change the names the namespaces are exported to particular fs and to support
>> rename().
>>
>> Before introduction a principally new filesystem type for this, can't
>> this be solved in current /proc?
>
> do you mean to introduce names for namespaces which users will be able
> to change? By default, this can be uuid.
Yes, I mean this.
Currently I won't give a final answer about UUID, but I planned to show some
default names, which based on namespace type and inode num. Completely custom
names for any /proc by default will waste too much memory.
So, I think the good way will be:
1)Introduce a function, which returns a hash/uuid based on ino, ns type and
some static
random seed, which is generated on boot;
2)Use the hash/uuid as default names in newly create /proc/namespaces:
pid-{hash/uuid(ino, "pid")}
3)Allow rename, and allocate space only for renamed names.
Maybe 2 and 3 will be implemented as shrinkable dentries and non-shrinkable.
> And I have a suggestion about the structure of /proc/namespaces/.
>
> Each namespace is owned by one of user namespaces. Maybe it makes sense
> to group namespaces by their user-namespaces?
>
> /proc/namespaces/
> user
> mnt-X
> mnt-Y
> pid-X
> uts-Z
> user-X/
> user
> mnt-A
> mnt-B
> user-C
> user-C/
> user
> user-Y/
> user
Hm, I don't think that user namespace is a generic key value for everybody.
For generic people tasks a user namespace is just a namespace among another
namespace types. For me it will look a bit strage to iterate some user
namespaces
to build container net topology.
> Do we try to invent cgroupfs for namespaces?
Could you clarify your thought?
