On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 10:26:02 +0200
Stefano Brivio <sbrivio(a)redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 11:16:05 +1000
> David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:16:58PM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:  
> > > On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 14:58:39 +1000
> > > David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> > >     
> > > > When not given an existing PID or network namspace to attach to, pasta
> > > > spawns a shell.  Most commands which can spawn a shell in an altered
> > > > environment can also run other commands in that same environment, which can
> > > > be useful in automation.
> > > > 
> > > > Allow pasta to do the same thing; it can be given an arbitrary command to
> > > > run in the network and user namespace which pasta creates.  If neither a
> > > > command nor an existing PID or netns to attach to is given, continue to
> > > > spawn a default shell, as before.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> > > > ---
> > > >  conf.c  | 27 ++++++++++++++++++---------
> > > >  passt.1 | 14 +++++++++-----
> > > >  pasta.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > > >  pasta.h |  2 +-
> > > >  4 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/conf.c b/conf.c
> > > > index 2a18124..162c2dd 100644
> > > > --- a/conf.c
> > > > +++ b/conf.c
> > > > @@ -550,7 +550,8 @@ static int conf_ns_pid(char *userns, char *netns, const char *arg)
> > > >  		return 0;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > > -	return -EINVAL;
> > > > +	/* Not a PID, later code will treat as a command */
> > > > +	return 0;
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > >  /**
> > > > @@ -1480,14 +1481,18 @@ void conf(struct ctx *c, int argc, char **argv)
> > > >  
> > > >  	check_root(c);
> > > >  
> > > > -	if (c->mode == MODE_PASTA && optind + 1 == argc) {
> > > > -		ret = conf_ns_pid(userns, netns, argv[optind]);
> > > > -		if (ret < 0)
> > > > +	if (c->mode == MODE_PASTA) {
> > > > +		if (*netns && optind != argc) {
> > > > +			err("Both --netns and PID or command given");
> > > >  			usage(argv[0]);
> > > > -	} else if (c->mode == MODE_PASTA && *userns
> > > > -		   && !*netns && optind == argc) {
> > > > -		err("--userns requires --netns or PID");
> > > > -		usage(argv[0]);
> > > > +		} else if (optind + 1 == argc) {
> > > > +			ret = conf_ns_pid(userns, netns, argv[optind]);
> > > > +			if (ret < 0)
> > > > +				usage(argv[0]);
> > > > +		} else if (*userns && !*netns && optind == argc) {
> > > > +			err("--userns requires --netns or PID");
> > > > +			usage(argv[0]);
> > > > +		}
> > > >  	} else if (optind != argc) {
> > > >  		usage(argv[0]);
> > > >  	}
> > > >
> > > > [...]    
> > > 
> > > I haven't really looked into this yet, but I guess we should now
> > > handle getopts return codes a bit differently, because this works:
> > > 
> > >   $ ./pasta --config-net -- sh -c 'sleep 1; ip li sh'
> > >   1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
> > >       link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
> > >   2: enp9s0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65520 qdisc pfifo_fast state UNKNOWN mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
> > >       link/ether aa:3e:39:5f:c6:15 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
> > > 
> > > while this doesn't:
> > > 
> > >   $ ./pasta --config-net sh -c 'sleep 1; ip li sh'
> > >   ./pasta: invalid option -- 'c'
> > >   [...]
> > > 
> > > despite the fact that there's no ambiguity.    
> > 
> > You mean because pasta itself doesn't have a -c option?  
> 
> Ah, no, I meant it's after 'sh', which is a non-option argument.
> However,
> 
> > Attempting to
> > account for that sounds like a bad idea.  Requiring -- when the
> > command given has options of its own that aren't supposed to go to the
> > wrapper is pretty common for these sorts of tools.  Basically the
> > trade-off is that you either need to require that, or you have to
> > require that all non-option arguments of the wrapper come last (old
> > style POSIXish command line parsing, as opposed to GNUish
> > conventions).  The latter is usually more awkward than the former.  
> 
> ...right, my assumption was exactly that, but it's probably not a good
> one. Let's keep it this way then. I wonder, though, if in the man page:
> 
>        pasta [OPTION]... [COMMAND [ARG]...]
> 
> we should explicitly mention this, because from this synopsis line it
> looks like it's enough to put any command, with any argument, at the
> end. Or maybe it's already covered by typical GNUish conventions and
> users are used to it.

...I couldn't find any example of an explicit mention of "--" in man
pages, so I'm not sure what's the convention for this, if any.

I'd leave the man page as you patched it, if somebody has a better idea
or stumbles upon this, we can improve it later.

-- 
Stefano