4 ms·

As the maintainer of a Go container runtime (runc), and having worked with Rust in various other projects, while they can be better languages for building large

• bheadmaster 3y ago
  Wouldn't "runtime.LockOSThead()" help with the single-threaded API?
  • cyphar 3y ago
    No, that only pins the current goroutine to a single OS thread (which is needed for some APIs -- namely, all of the other namespace APIs and some thread-related APIs). There is no way to make an entire Go program run as a single threaded program without using CGo the way we do in runc. Even GOMAXPROCS=1 doesn't work. CLONE_NEWUSER will always fail in a multi-threaded program.
• pjmlp 3y ago
  Those Rust and Go bugs aren't much different from C gotchas when writing portable UNIX code.
  • lelanthran 3y ago
    > Those Rust and Go bugs aren't much different from C gotchas when writing portable UNIX code. Maybe, but: 1. It's irrelevant to this product (no one is writing portable UNIX code when they are writing some Linux-specific software, like container implementations). and 2. It's irrelevant to the author's goals (learning Linux kernel stuff using the language that the interface to the kernel uses is a better idea than using a different language and hacking shims for all the stuff you want to do). and 3. The cost to switch to a new language is substantial, and only makes sense if you're either joining a team and project that uses that new language, or if the goal is to learn that new language.
    • pjmlp 3y ago
      1. Containers predate Linux, appeared in other UNIXes before GNU/Linux, and Windows also has them. 2. Any languge able to call into Linux API surface is usable. And if we go down the UNIX native languages route born at Bell Labs, C++ also counts. 3. That depends on how much someone knows C (properly), versus other alternatives
      • aragilar 3y ago
        It depends what you mean by "container". As far as I know, Windows containers aren't using namespaces, cgroups and seccomp. BSD Jails are definitely a different thing. So if you wanted to know how exactly linux containers worked, it's probably easiest to use what the linux docs provide (which is C).
        • pjmlp 3y ago
          Of course Windows containers aren't using Linux APIs, they are using Win32 mechanisms for process sandboxing. Just like HP-UX vaults, and Solaris Zones aren't using namespaces, cgroups and seccomp, rather their own UNIX flavours.
• kouteiheika 3y ago
  > One example that immediately comes to mind from Rust is a bug with O_PATH file descriptors I found a while ago[1], which would've made certain code we use in runc not work. [...] Neither of these issues exist in C programs. This issue doesn't intrinsically affect Rust as a language (when compared to C), because you can just do exactly the same thing as you'd have done in C: let fd = libc::open(b"/path\0".as_ptr().cast(), libc::libc::O_CLOEXEC | libc::O_PATH); Or just make the syscall directly-ish: let fd = libc::syscall(libc::SYS_open, b"/path\0".as_ptr(), libc::O_CLOEXEC | libc::O_PATH); Or use rustix if you want more convenient idiomatic wrappers. And for setting up containers you'll have to do this anyway because Rust's standard library doesn't expose all of the necessary functionality anyway.
  • cyphar 3y ago
    I'm aware you can work around it, there are workarounds for issues in Go as well. In general, C programs do not require workarounds for dealing with kernel APIs for the simple reason that the vast majority of kernel APIs are developed with test programs written in C, so kernel developers will usually not design an API that is awful to use in C. Another thing that surprised me when I first started programming in Rust is that: let fd = File::open("foo")?.as_raw_fd(); and let f = File::open("foo")?; let fd = f.as_raw_fd(); have different behaviour, with the former being incorrect and a possible security bug if you use the file descriptor directly afterwards. But I guess this behaviour is obvious to seasoned Rust developer (at least, it seems obvious to me now).
    • LegionMammal978 3y ago
      As I understand it, that as_raw_fd() issue is a big reason that they added the BorrowedFd<'_> type [0] and corresponding AsFd trait in 1.63.0, to prevent the raw file descriptor from outliving its logical owner. Still, I agree that there is lots of potential for issues on the boundary between Rust's implicit lifetime management vs. C APIs' explicit lifetime management, since there won't always be a convenient preexisting mechanism to bridge the gap. [0] https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/os/fd/struct.BorrowedFd.html https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/os/fd/struct.BorrowedFd.html
    • 3y ago