Re: Friendlier EPERM - Request for input

[Carlos O'Donell <carlos at systemhalted dot org>]

On 01/09/2013 04:09 PM, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 21:59 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 12:53:40PM -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>> I'm suggesting that the string returned by get_extended_error_info()
>>> ought to be the audit record the system call would generate, regardless
>>> of whether the audit system would emit it or not.
>>
>> What system call would that info be for and would it be reset on next
>> syscall that succeeded, or also failed?
>>
>> The thing is, various functions e.g. perform some syscall, save errno, do
>> some other syscall, and if they decide that the first syscall should be what
>> determines the whole function's errno, just restore errno from the saved
>> value and return.  Similarly, various functions just set errno upon
>> detecting some error condition in userspace.
>> There is no 1:1 mapping between many libc library calls and syscalls.
>> So, when would it be safe to call this new get_extended_error_info function
>> and how to determine to which syscall it was relevant?

I asked the same questions as Jakub asked but in a slightly different
formulation (http://cygwin.com/ml/libc-alpha/2013-01/msg00267.html).
 
> I was thinking of it to be the last kernel error.  So if the first and
> that second operation caused the kernel to want to make available
> extended errno information you would end up with the second.  I see this
> is an informative piece of information, not normative.  Not a
> replacement for errno.  I'm hoping for a best effort way to provide
> extended errno information.

IMO Casey's answer is the right solution i.e. whatever the errno
behaviour was.

> It would be really neat for libc to have a way to save and restore the
> extended errno information, maybe even supply its own if it made the
> choice in userspace, but that sounds really hard for the first pass.

Unfortunately without the ability to save/restore the extended
information the best you can do is say "You saw an error, here is
the last N kernel syscalls you made and their error return codes."

You could take a signal at any time and have interposed syscalls,
or you could call a glibc function that makes many syscalls. You
need a way to expose the last N syscalls with errors and hope that
that's enough information for the user to determine the issue.

> I mean it would be great if we could rewrite every system call with a
> cookie so userspace could reliably match things back up, but I just
> don't see that as practical.  Instead we do the best we can and help
> admins and developers most of the time, instead of none of the time.

Agreed.

Cheers,
Carlos.