[RFC PATCH] getvalues(2) prototype

[Casey Schaufler]

On 3/23/2022 6:24 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 at 12:43, Christian Brauner <brauner at kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> Yes, we really need a way to query for various fs information. I'm a bit
>> torn about the details of this interface though. I would really like if
>> we had interfaces that are really easy to use from userspace comparable
>> to statx for example.
> The reason I stated thinking about this is that Amir wanted a per-sb
> iostat interface and dumped it into /proc/PID/mountstats.  And that is
> definitely not the right way to go about this.
>
> So we could add a statfsx() and start filling in new stuff, and that's
> what Linus suggested.  But then we might need to add stuff that is not
> representable in a flat structure (like for example the stuff that
> nfs_show_stats does) and that again needs new infrastructure.
>
> Another example is task info in /proc.  Utilities are doing a crazy
> number of syscalls to get trivial information.  Why don't we have a
> procx(2) syscall?  I guess because lots of that is difficult to
> represent in a flat structure.  Just take the lsof example: tt's doing
> hundreds of thousands of syscalls on a desktop computer with just a
> few hundred processes.
>
> So I'm trying to look beyond fsinfo and about how we could better
> retrieve attributes, statistics, small bits and pieces within a
> unified framework.
>
> The ease of use argument does not really come into the picture here,
> because (unlike stat and friends) most of this info is specialized and
> will be either consumed by libraries, specialized utilities
> (util-linux, procos) or with a generic utility application that can
> query any information about anything that is exported through such an
> interface.    That applies to plain stat(2) as well: most users will
> not switch to statx() simply because that's too generic.  And that's
> fine, for info as common as struct stat a syscall is warranted.  If
> the info is more specialized, then I think a truly generic interface
> is a much better choice.
>
>>   I know having this generic as possible was the
>> goal but I'm just a bit uneasy with such interfaces. They become
>> cumbersome to use in userspace. I'm not sure if the data: part for
>> example should be in this at all. That seems a bit out of place to me.
> Good point, reduction of scope may help.
>
>> Would it be really that bad if we added multiple syscalls for different
>> types of info? For example, querying mount information could reasonably
>> be a more focussed separate system call allowing to retrieve detailed
>> mount propagation info, flags, idmappings and so on. Prior approaches to
>> solve this in a completely generic way have gotten us not very far too
>> so I'm a bit worried about this aspect too.
> And I fear that this will just result in more and more ad-hoc
> interfaces being added, because a new feature didn't quite fit the old
> API.  You can see the history of this happening all over the place
> with multiple new syscall versions being added as the old one turns
> out to be not generic enough.
>
> I think a new interface needs to
>
>    - be uniform (a single utility can be used to retrieve various
> attributes and statistics, contrast this with e.g. stat(1),
> getfattr(1), lsattr(1) not to mention various fs specific tools).
>
>   - have a hierarchical namespace (the unix path lookup is an example
> of this that stood the test of time)
>
>   - allow retrieving arbitrary text or binary data

You also need a way to get a list off what attributes are available
and/or a way to get all available attributes. Applications and especially
libraries shouldn't have to guess what information is relevant. If the
attributes change depending on the filesystem and/or LSM involved, and
they do, how can a general purpose library function know what data to
ask for?

>
> And whatever form it takes, I'm sure it will be easier to use than the
> mess we currently have in various interfaces like the mount or process
> stats.
>
> Thanks,
> Miklos