Arguably it has been implemented with clone(2) which has flags.
> in fact, it's easier to reason about fork than something like POSIX threads, IMHO.
Not if you call fork() in a multi-threaded program. That ends _exceptionally_ badly (let's just say there's a reason Go doesn't expose syscall.Fork and it has to do with horrific deadlocks).
> I just didn't see the problem as being all that damning of Go.
The problem is more subtle, and it comes down to maintainability and understandably. If you ever decide to read the runc codebase, I apologise. One of the reasons the codebase is so scattered is because of these sorts of hacks where you have to work around issues in the Go runtime (because it doesn't give you enough control). In the article, whenever you read the small function you have to keep in mind that it's actually spawning a subprocess (which then means you have to think about what namespaces had the process joined and so on). Go is an okay language, but it simply wasn't designed for stuff this low-level. We would be much better served with Rust in my opinion.
> But, are you saying that to switch to a namespace in Go one must fork, whereas one wouldn't need to fork in C unless you need to switch namespace and you need concurrency
In C you don't need to fork to switch namespaces, you just call setns(...). For the PID namespace you need to fork, but that's just a quirk of the interface.
In Go, you theoretically don't need to fork either (syscall.Setns is available). However, there is no real way to safely use it. First of all, the namespace interfaces in Linux are quite fragile when it comes to multi-threaded processes, but combine that with a runtime that will switch you between OS threads at random. And while the documentation on runtime.GOMAXPROC and runtime.LockOSThread might trick you into believing it's possible to stop the Go runtime from doing a clone(CLONE_THREAD|CLONE_PARENT), you can't.
Actually, that's not true. Perhaps it's theoretically possible, in some cases, to make your threaded code work with fork with the appropriate pthread_atfork() handlers, but in general, it's a total mess. Thread A has a lock, thread B calls fork(), thread B tries to acquire the lock. The lock is held, but thread A is not running in the child. That much should be obvious.
The usual fix is to write a pthread_atfork() handler for every lock in your program. Before forking, it locks all of your mutexes. After forking, in both the child and parent, it unlocks them. You can see the holes in this. One simple hole is that fork() is async signal safe but pthread_mutex_lock() is not, but most people won't fork() in a signal anyway. The big problem is that you now need to make all of your locks recursive and figure out, globally, what order to lock them in. This means registering your atfork() handlers in exactly the right order, something which is more difficult than it sounds. Another problem is the performance implications of acquiring all the locks in your program.
Namespaces + threads are fine, the only problem here is namespaces + M:N threads + no method for pinning a green thread to an OS thread, like forkOS in Haskell.
Not quite. unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER) and setns(fd, CLONE_NEWNS) require your process to be single-threaded. So precise control over threading is needed.
> If a multi-threaded process calls fork() ... the child process may only execute async-signal-safe operations until such time as one of the exec functions is called.
IEEE Std 1003.1-2008, 2016 Edition
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/
I don't know about "design is broken". I personally think the fork()/exec() model is a clumsy way to create a new process, but that's a matter of taste.
... what? I am confused as to what you're saying here.
It's painful to write because writing software that is memory safe is not easy. Rust makes it insanely easy in comparison to the "old way" of doing it (hacking together a C program then having to patch security holes every release, never being certain that your code is actually memory safe).
> Can I not write a well designed and correct program in C? Of course I can.
Of course you can. All it takes is a separate formal proofing process, countless hours of static analysis and many more months of fixing security bugs. Good thing that's so much simpler than Rust's static analysis which runs on every compilation and mathematically proves that its memory model was not violated.
I think if we have learned one thing in the history of C programs, it's that this sentiment that "a sufficiently smart programmer can write safe C code" is quite harmful. While technically true, I don't think I've ever met such an individual and I doubt one exists.
however, usually code is written by multiple people. (and i would also count your future self as another person).
that collaboration on the same code base requires automatic tests, otherwise the next person will break the code in non-obvious ways.
We have decades of coredumps and exploits to convince us that nobody can. How many well-known apps can you name that have never blown up randomly? I can't think of a single one. How much more failure until it's reasonable to think that C requires an inhuman level of perfection and almost any alternative would be an improvement?
I hear good things about seL4 but that wasn't written so much as translated from Haskell during a formal process that makes Rust look like finger painting.
It's actually more fun than that. They have two implementations of seL4, and they use formal proofs to show that the Haskell model is identical to the C implementation. How much fun is that! /s
Rust and Go advocates will have you think that they have conquered security via the memory mgmt and API front but there is still the off chance they haven't..or that the SA (what is left of that maligned profession outside playbooks and the devops marketing you read here and online) has allowed you a chance for glory.
1. Do not trust user input. This is a cardinal rule in whatever source. If the rule were followed vigorously in every case there would be 90% less exposure. When you take user input, filter. 2. Learn the standard and stick to it.
Finally #3 (unix) Write an application to do a certain thing well.
On #1, having just stumbled across a deserializer that can be commanded to allocate a 2^63 byte buffer, I agree 110%.
On #2, the problem is that the standard says things like "walking off the end of an array is undefined behavior" and "use after free is undefined behavior" yet we don't seem to have any programmers who can be trusted to reliably avoid these problems with zero runtime checking.
I do disagree with you, as it happens, but I'd downvote this sort of thing if I agreed too. There's a difference between bluntness being read as rudeness and what you're doing. Stop.
A year or so ago I wrote a Postgres extension in Rust. It was a real delight to have a package manager and to only have to worry about allocations within Postgres.
But whenever I want to code a big hairball without libraries or namespaces and use autoconf and all that great stuff, I still stick with C.
Please report this to the Hacker News mods, if you have evidence. It's against the rules, and they check this kind of thing. Nobody should be doing it.
> IP Holders, well this is speculative.
All of Rust's stuff is MIT/Apache2 licensed. There is a trademark on the name and logo, held by Mozilla, but other than that, there's none.
This clearly showed me the advantage of Rust over C.
The article is stating that to control the namespace that the threads execute in, that a separate process must be spawned so that the entire process can be forced into the correct namespace. Otherwise, the runtime can spawn new threads as it sees fit and you don't have control over which namespace they are in.
It might be possible to work around this from within the same process if it were possible to force the runtime to not spawn new threads in particular cases. If you could control when the runtime was allowed to spawn new threads, then you could organize the program / threads in a way that would keep the correct code operating in the correct namespace. Unfortunately, you can't.
Disclaimer: I don't know Go, but this is my understanding from reading the article.
When changing namespace happens often in a hot path, forking might not be fast enough.
I disagree with Walton that the blame is on the N:M threading. It's really on the Linux kernel that has never made a clean distinction between threads and processes, both in kernel and in the APIs.
If you have one thread in one namespace and another in another you now have to worry about what you can do in the context of a callback. This asymmetry just makes any multi-threaded program more complicated than it needs to be (and already is).
But there also are non-security applications of namespaces.
And it's not like namespaces are the only per-thread thing in linux. Capabilities, uid and signal handlers come to mind.
But, are you saying that to switch to a namespace in Go one must fork, whereas one wouldn't need to fork in C unless you need to switch namespace and you need concurrency (because you can determine when things will happen with precision in C)? I don't know. Again, this is beyond my understanding of Go right now.
I may just not be understanding the implications of this. The code to deal with it looks reasonable enough to me; it's a smallish function, easily isolated. I think the author did a great job explaining the problem, the troubleshooting, and the solution. I just didn't see the problem as being all that damning of Go...but, that may be a reflection of my shallow understanding of the problem, or of the implications of the cost spawning a new process (to me, I always think back to the old adage "fork is cheap on Linux").