Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:20:19 +0200 From: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@FreeBSD.org>, kib@FreeBSD.org, rwatson@FreeBSD.garage.freebsd.pl, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: final decision about *at syscalls Message-ID: <20080412112019.GI45299@garage.freebsd.pl> In-Reply-To: <200712201138.56423.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20071218092222.GA9695@freebsd.org> <200712201138.56423.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:38:55AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 December 2007 04:22:22 am Roman Divacky wrote:
> > Dear arch@
> >
> > Over this summer I was working (among other things) on *at family of syscalls
> > kindly sponsored by Google (in their Summer of Code). The resulting patch is
> > almost finished but I need to decide one design question. If you are not interested
> > in *at/namei feel free to skip this mail.
> >
> > The *at syscalls are a threads-oriented extension to basic file syscalls (think
> > of open(), fstat(), etc.) adding the possibility to specify from where the search
> > for relative path should start.
> >
> > image that we have /tmp/foo/bar
> >
> > and CWD is set to "/tmp/", and the process has opened "foo" as dirfd. with ordinary
> > open() syscall you have to either
> >
> > chdir("/tmp/foo");open("./bar");
> >
> > or
> >
> > open("/tmp/foo/bar");
> >
> > The first approach is problematic because it changes CWD for all threads in the process,
> > the second is prone to race-conditions as some of the components of the path can
> > change in parallel with the "open".
> >
> > So POSIX introduced a new API, called "Extended API set part 2, ISBN: 1-931624-67-4" (at
> > least this was the latest when I looked last time), which solves that by introducing "*at"
> > syscalls that supply an fd of previously opened directory which is used instead of CWD
> > for searching relative path, ie. the previous example becomes
> >
> > dirfd = open("/tmp/foo"); openat("foo", dirfd);
> >
> > I implemented the whole API as native FreeBSD syscalls + in linuxulator emulation layer.
> > Here's the problem:
> >
> > There are two approaches to the name translation from "filedescriptor" to the "vnode".
> >
> > 1) we can do it in the kern_fooat() syscall and pass namei() the resulting vnode
> > 2) we can pass namei() the filedescriptor and do the translation there
> >
> > PROs of #1:
> >
> > o namei() does not need to know about the curthread, you can use this *at
> > ability for different purposes, it's cleaner (imho)
> >
> > PROs of #2
> >
> > o raceless implementation
> > o no code duplication
> >
> > CONs of #1
> >
> > o some very small code duplication (the translation is done in every
> > kern_fooat() function)
> > o there is a race between the name translation and the actual use of the result
> > of the translation that needs to be handled, the "path_to_file" string is copied
> > to the kernel space twice hence a race
> >
> > CONs of #2
> >
> > o namei is made thread dependant
> >
> > Please tell me what approach you like more. I personally favour #1 because I don't like namei()
> > being thread dependant, Kostik Belousov prefers #2.
>
> Considering Robert's paper on security race problems in things like systrace
> stemming from when you copy parameters out of userland and into the kernel
> multiple times, I think #2 is definitely the better choice. Also, namei() is
> already thread aware AFAICT since 'struct componentname' already contains a
> 'cnp_thread' member (was 'cnp_proc' in 4.x).
It looks like I'm a bit too late, but anyway...
From what you write John, #1 is a better choice than #2. If you want to
avoid races, you can pass already locked vnode. In case of file
descriptors, if p_fd is not locked another thread can close and open
different directory under the same descriptor number.
I also need such functionality for recent ZFS and #2 makes it impossible
to use it. NDINIT_AT() is kernel (VFS) API so it should operate on
vnodes, not file descriptor numbers, IMHO.
For completness can you Kostik and Robert provide your arguments against
#1?
--
Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl
pjd@FreeBSD.org http://www.FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFIAJrzForvXbEpPzQRAuaLAJ9CTWpcMOvRjzqpLSqlCZUR7ThV5ACeIO2y
DG+DRIroPDDqxpVveIREmnA=
=wDOB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080412112019.GI45299>