Re: setsid2(sid) proposal - assign current process to existing session

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 01:09:54PM +0200, Devin Bayer wrote:

Hello,

Hey Devin,

I'm wondering about the possibility of introducing a new system call for
moving a process to an existing session. If `sid` is an existing session
with the same owner as the current process, one could call:

	setsid2(sid)

This would have similar behavior to setpgid(), and would probably
effectively call setpgid() internally too.

Honestly, there are already so many transitioning rules between process
groups and session groups (like that a process group leader can't create
new sessions and subsequently also shouldn't be able to move between
sessions and if you move between process groups they both must be in the
same session) I'm really no keen on introducing yet more transitioning
rules.

Also, session ids and process group ids are racy enough as it is and
introduce edge-cases that are annoying in userspace especially when
signaling process groups. I'm not a fan of introducing even more
racyness.

The use case is for something like `flatpak-spawn --host`, which allows you
to launch a program in an outer namespace from an inner namespace. It
behaves as a child of the caller but is actually a child of an external
daemon.

It works by connecting stdin/out/err to those of the caller, for example a
PTY for xterm running in the inner namespace. This works fine for
non-interactive programs, but it's impossible for the spawned task to share
the controlling TTY with the shell running in xterm.

I can't see where the problems are, though I'm surprised such functionally
doesn't yet exist. Because it deals with such basic concepts, I'm wondering
if such a change will even be considered.

There is a workaround; one can create a new PTY on the host and copy the I/O
streams manually. Not ideal, but okay.

The solution you mentioned is basically the standard way of dealing with
similar problems in every container runtime and in various other places
in userspace and given that it's not that hard to implement this seems
fine.

Thanks!
Christian