[systemd-devel] Notification socket and chroot vs PrivateNetwork conflict (abstract vs file-system)

Alban Crequy alban.crequy at gmail.com
Thu Mar 5 03:16:20 PST 2015

On 9 December 2014 at 17:28, Lennart Poettering <lennart at poettering.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 09.12.14 16:24, Krzysztof Kotlenga (k.kotlenga at sims.pl) wrote:
>> Hi.
>> Currently notify socket is unavailable in chrooted services (again)
>> unless you bind mount it there. Is there perhaps another, less
>> cumbersome way?
>> So far notify socket was:
>> 1. abstract socket
>>    commit 8c47c7325fa1ab72febf807f8831ff24c75fbf45
>>    notify: add minimal readiness/status protocol for spawned daemons
>> 2. file-system socket
>>    commit 91b22f21f3824c1766d34f622c5bbb70cbe881a8
>>    core: move abstract namespace sockets to /dev/.run
>>    Now that we have /dev/.run there's no need to use abstract
>>    namespace sockets. So, let's move things to /dev/.run, to make
>>    things more easily discoverable and improve compat with chroot()
>>    and fs namespacing.
>> 3. abstract socket again
>>    commit 29252e9e5bad3b0bcfc45d9bc761aee4b0ece1da
>>    manager: turn notify socket into abstract namespace socket again
>>    sd_notify() should work for daemons that chroot() as part of their
>>    initilization, hence it's a good idea to use an abstract namespace
>>    socket which is not affected by chroot.
>> 4. file-system socket again
>>    commit 7181dbdb2e3112858d62bdaea4f0ad2ed685ccba
>>    core: move notify sockets to /run and $XDG_RUNTIME_DIR
>>    A service with PrivateNetwork= cannot access abstract namespace
>>    sockets of the host anymore, hence let's better not use abstract
>>    namespace sockets for this, since we want to make sure that
>>    PrivateNetwork= is useful and doesn't break sd_notify().
>> So... would it be acceptable to have two notify sockets, one abstract
>> and one normal, the latter only set for services with PrivateNetwork
>> or - better maybe - explicitly selectable? Any other ideas?
> Hmm, but what would you do for a service that has both PrivateNetwork
> and chroot enabled?
> I am all open for shifting things around again, but I inda would
> prefer a solution that works universally in the end...
> Ideas?
> I figure we could open a new mount namespace and mount the file system
> socket into the chroot, but not sure I like the idea...

I don't know what is the best solution but using a socket file seems
better than using an abstract unix socket: processes in a
systemd-nspawn container could discover the notify socket of the host
in /proc/net/unix (if it does not use a new network namespace) and
send garbage file descriptors with SCM_RIGHTS from the container to
the host. Systemd on the host does the right thing: it closes the fds
when the datagram was not sent by a managed unit. Does
manager_get_unit_by_pid() matches the exact cgroup path only or does
it also matches a prefix path? I wonder about nspawn containers
started by a service unit on the host.

More information about the systemd-devel mailing list