linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/4] sunrpc: Use utsnamespaces

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:	Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:44:22 -0500
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/4] sunrpc: Use utsnamespaces

On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:38:26PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 19:26 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:20:07PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > As for the NFSv4 clientid, I can't see how you would ever want to use
> > > anything other than the init->utsname(), since the requirement is only
> > > that the clientid string be unique and preserved across reboots. The
> > > server isn't allowed to interpret the contents of the clientid string.
> > > Ditto for the RPCSEC_GSS machine creds that are used to establish the
> > > clientid.
> > 
> > If people eventually expect to be able to, say, migrate a container to
> > another host while using an nfs mount as their storage, then they'd need
> > the name to be that of the container, not of the host.
> 
> Why?
>
> > Obviously we'd also need to ensure the container got its own nfsv4
> > client state, etc., etc., and it sounds like we're far from that.
> 
> Again, why? Are you seriously proposing a plan to transport all NFS and
> locking state directly from one kernel to another?

If people seem to think they can do live process and container
migration:

	http://ols.fedoraproject.org/OLS/Reprints-2008/mirkin-reprint.pdf

then moving the NFS state strikes me as not the greatest of their
troubles.

I'm not volunteering!

--b.
--
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/