linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] containers: Generic Process Containers (V6)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 4 Jan 2007 16:25:59 -0800
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc:	akpm@...l.org, pj@....com, sekharan@...ibm.com, dev@...ru,
	xemul@...ru, vatsa@...ibm.com, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, mbligh@...gle.com, winget@...gle.com,
	rohitseth@...gle.com, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] containers: Generic Process Containers (V6)

Hi Serge,

On 1/3/07, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com> wrote:
> From: Serge E. Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>
> Subject: [RFC] [PATCH 1/1] container: define a namespace container subsystem
>
> Here's a stab at a namespace container subsystem based on
> Paul Menage's containers patch, just to experiment with
> how semantics suit what we want.

Thanks for looking at this.

What you have here is the basic boilerplate for any generic container
subsystem. I realise that my current containers patch has some
incompatibilities with the way that nsproxy wants to work.

>
> A few things we'll want to address:
>
>         1. We'll want to be able to hook things like
>            rmdir, so that we can rm -rf /containers/vserver1
>            to kill all processes in that container and all
>            child containers.

The current model is that rmdir fails if there are any processes still
in the container; so you'd have to kill processes by looking for pids
in the "tasks" info file. This was behaviour inherited from the
cpusets code; I'd be open to making this more configurable (e.g.
specifying that rmdir should try to kill any remaining tasks).

>
>         2. We need a semantic difference between attaching
>            to a container, and being the first to join the
>            container you just created.

Right - the way to do this would probably be some kind of
"container_clone()" function that duplicates the properties of the
current container in a child, and immediately moves the current
process into that container.

>
>         3. We will want to be able to give the container
>            attach function more info, so that we can ask to
>            attach to just the network namespace, but none of
>            the others, in the container we're attaching to.

If you want to be able to attach to different namespaces separately,
then possibly they should be separate container subsystems?

Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/