linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] Clone PTS namespace

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:	Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:01:16 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	sukadev@...ibm.com
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>, serue@...ibm.com,
	clg@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] Clone PTS namespace

sukadev@...ibm.com wrote:
> We want to provide isolation between containers, meaning PTYs in container
> C1 should not be accessible to processes in C2 (unless C2 is an ancestor).

Yes, I certainly can understand the desire for isolation.  That wasn't 
what my question was about.

> The other reason for this in the longer term is for checkpoint/restart.
> When restarting an application we want to make sure that the PTY indices
> it was using is available and isolated.

OK, this would be the motivation for index isolation.

> A complete device-namespace could solve this, but IIUC, is being planned
> in the longer term. We are hoping this would provide the isolation in the
> near-term without being too intrusive or impeding the implementation of
> the device namespace.

I'm just worried about the accumulation of what feels like ad hoc 
namespaces, causing a very large combination matrix, a lot of which 
don't make sense.

	-hpa
--
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/