linux-kernel - Re: cgroup: status-quo and userland efforts

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, 9 Apr 2013 12:46:40 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@...hat.com>
Cc:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	bsingharora@...il.com, dhaval.giani@...il.com,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
	lpoetter@...hat.com, workman-devel@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cgroup: status-quo and userland efforts

A bit of addition.

On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:38:51PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > We need to make the distribute approach work in order to support
> > containers, which requiring them to have a back-channel open to
> > the host userspace. If we can do that, then we've solved the problem

Why is back-channel such a bad thing?  Even fully virtualized
environments do special things to communicate with the host (the whole
stack of virt drivers).  It is sub-optimal and pointless to make
everything completely transparent.  There's nothing wrong with the
basesystem knowing that they're inside a container or a virtualized
environment, so I don't understand why a back-channel is such a big
problem.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/