Re: [PATCH v4 01/12] virtiofsd: Keep /proc/self/mountinfo open

[Vivek Goyal]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 11:04:31AM +0200, Hanna Reitz wrote:
> On 18.10.21 19:07, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 10:40:34AM +0200, Hanna Reitz wrote:
> > > File handles are specific to mounts, and so name_to_handle_at() returns
> > > the respective mount ID.  However, open_by_handle_at() is not content
> > > with an ID, it wants a file descriptor for some inode on the mount,
> > > which we have to open.
> > > 
> > > We want to use /proc/self/mountinfo to find the mounts' root directories
> > > so we can open them and pass the respective FDs to open_by_handle_at().
> > > (We need to use the root directory, because we want the inode belonging
> > > to every mount FD be deletable.  Before the root directory can be
> > > deleted, all entries within must have been closed, and so when it is
> > > deleted, there should not be any file handles left that need its FD as
> > > their mount FD.  Thus, we can then close that FD and the inode can be
> > > deleted.[1])
> > > 
> > > That is why we need to open /proc/self/mountinfo so that we can use it
> > > to translate mount IDs into root directory paths.  We have to open it
> > > after setup_mounts() was called, because if we try to open it before, it
> > > will appear as an empty file after setup_mounts().
> > > 
> > > [1] Note that in practice, you still cannot delete the mount root
> > > directory.  It is a mount point on the host, after all, and mount points
> > > cannot be deleted.  But by using the mount point as the mount FD, we
> > > will at least not hog any actually deletable inodes.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Hanna Reitz <hreitz@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >   tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >   1 file changed, 40 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c 
> > > b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> > > index 38b2af8599..6511a6acb4 100644
> > > --- a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> > > +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> > > @@ -172,6 +172,8 @@ struct lo_data {
> > >       /* An O_PATH file descriptor to /proc/self/fd/ */
> > >       int proc_self_fd;
> > > +    /* A read-only FILE pointer for /proc/self/mountinfo */
> > > +    FILE *mountinfo_fp;
> > >       int user_killpriv_v2, killpriv_v2;
> > >       /* If set, virtiofsd is responsible for setting umask during 
> > > creation */
> > >       bool change_umask;
> > > @@ -3718,6 +3720,19 @@ static void setup_chroot(struct lo_data *lo)
> > >   static void setup_sandbox(struct lo_data *lo, struct fuse_session *se,
> > >                             bool enable_syslog)
> > >   {
> > > +    int proc_self, mountinfo_fd;
> > > +    int saverr;
> > > +
> > > +    /*
> > > +     * Open /proc/self before we pivot to the new root so we can still
> > > +     * open /proc/self/mountinfo afterwards
> > > +     */
> > > +    proc_self = open("/proc/self", O_PATH);
> > > +    if (proc_self < 0) {
> > > +        fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_WARNING, "Failed to open /proc/self: %m; "
> > > +                 "will not be able to use file handles\n");
> > > +    }
> > > +
> > Hi Hanna,
> > 
> > Should we open /proc/self and /proc/self/mountinfo only if user wants
> > to file handle. We have already parsed options by now so we know.
> 
> I didn’t think it would matter given that it wouldn’t have an adverse
> effect.  If we can’t open them (and I can’t imagine a case where we’d be
> unable to open them), the only result is a warning.
> 
> > Also, if user asked for file handles, and we can't open /proc/self or
> > /proc/self/mountinfo successfully, I would think we should error out
> > and not continue (instead of just log it and continue).
> 
> Well, that would break the assumption I had above.  Not that that’s really
> relevant, I just want to mention it.
> 
> File handles are a best effort in any case.  If they don’t work, we always
> fall back.  So I don’t know whether we must error out.
> 
> OTOH if we know they can never work, then perhaps it would be more sensible
> to error out.

Yes. If they can't work because filesystem does not have capability or
we don't have CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH or any other necessary component is
not there then we should fail.
> 
> FWIW I’ve ported the relevant v1..v4 changes to virtiofsd-rs, and there it
> errors out.  The error is unconditional, though, so even if you don’t
> request file handles, it’ll try to open mountinfo and exit on error.  I
> found that reasonable because I can’t imagine a case where opening
> /proc/self/fd would work, but /proc/self/mountinfo wouldn’t – and working
> around that would be a bit cumbersome (it would mean wrapping
> PassthroughFs.mount_fds in an Option<> and .unwrap()-ing it on every use,
> with a comment why that’s fine). Honestly, I’d prefer to wait until we get a
> bug report about a failure to open /proc/self/mountinfo.
> 
> > That seems to be general theme. If user asked for a feature and if
> > we can't enable it, we error out and let user retry without that
> > particular feature.
> > 
> > >       if (lo->sandbox == SANDBOX_NAMESPACE) {
> > >           setup_namespaces(lo, se);
> > >           setup_mounts(lo->source);
> > > @@ -3725,6 +3740,31 @@ static void setup_sandbox(struct lo_data *lo, 
> > > struct fuse_session *se,
> > >           setup_chroot(lo);
> > >       }
> > > +    /*
> > > +     * Opening /proc/self/mountinfo before the umount2() call in
> > > +     * setup_mounts() leads to the file appearing empty.  That is why
> > > +     * we defer opening it until here.
> > > +     */
> > > +    lo->mountinfo_fp = NULL;
> > > +    if (proc_self >= 0) {
> > > +        mountinfo_fd = openat(proc_self, "mountinfo", O_RDONLY);
> > > +        if (mountinfo_fd < 0) {
> > > +            saverr = errno;
> > > +        } else if (mountinfo_fd >= 0) {
> > > +            lo->mountinfo_fp = fdopen(mountinfo_fd, "r");
> > > +            if (!lo->mountinfo_fp) {
> > > +                saverr = errno;
> > > +                close(mountinfo_fd);
> > > +            }
> > > +        }
> > > +        if (!lo->mountinfo_fp) {
> > > +            fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_WARNING, "Failed to open 
> > > /proc/self/mountinfo: "
> > > +                     "%s; will not be able to use file handles\n",
> > > +                     strerror(saverr));
> > > +        }
> > > +        close(proc_self);
> > > +    }
> > > +
> > Above code couple probably be moved in a helper function. Makes it
> > easier to read setup_sandbox(). Same here, open mountinfo only if
> > user wants file handle support and error out if file handle support
> > can't be enabled.
> 
> Perhaps, but frankly I don’t see a need to keep setup_sandbox() readable. 
> AFAIU, we are planning to deprecate C virtiofsd anyway, so while it pains me
> to say something like this, we don’t need to keep it maintainable.
> 
> Now that I’ve opened an MR to bring the v1..v4 changes to virtiofsd-rs
> (https://gitlab.com/virtio-fs/virtiofsd-rs/-/merge_requests/41), I also
> don’t really see a justification for putting further development effort into
> bringing file handles to C virtiofsd.  Of course I’m still grateful for your
> review, and I’ll try to adapt it to virtiofsd-rs, but right now I don’t plan
> on sending a v5.

Fair enough. If file handle stuff is important for C version, I am hoping
somebody else can pick this work. Anyway I think its almost 90% ready, we
are just dealing with last 10% of issues.

Vivek