[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080229153811.GA5647@vino.hallyn.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:38:11 -0600
From: serge@...lyn.com
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc: serge@...lyn.com, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...nvz.org>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix /proc/net in presence of net namespaces
Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul@...nvz.org):
> [snip]
>
> >> However at least for visibility and inspection we want that.
> >> We want to inspect what is happening to other processes. If we didn't
> >> care then all of the pid namespaces could just be disjoint.
> >
> > But the way Pavel has it coded, only tasks in the init namespace can
> > view /proc/.net/* for any other net namespaces.
>
> This is not essential part of the patch :) I did so to make my
> life in init namespace easier. This part can be dropped.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Think of user space processes inspecting /proc etc.
> >
> > Well a task in one pid namespace cannot view the /proc for another pid
> > namespace, right?
>
> No. Pid namespace provides another pid-to-task map, but have noting
> to do with VFS visibility.
>
> >> Having directory
> >> names change out form under you for no apparent reason is pretty nasty.
> >
> > Yes, but they won't just 'change out' from under you, you ask for it...
> > But here like I said I do prefer an approach where /proc/net is bind
> > mounted by the user. But I have no good reason to back it up...
>
> If you make /proc/net be a bund mount then you have to force all of
> the users to update their init scripts. I tried to make so with sysctl
> filesystem, but this thread was not very popular :)
Ok.
A symlink is far preferable to sneaky redirection imo.
> Another way to do so - is to mount this one from inside the kernel,
> but are you ready to fight with Al Viro for this? :)
Nope :) Especially since it's an ugly idea.
> [snip]
>
> >> So I think /proc/.netns/ or simply /proc/netns/ is a good choice. We
> >> just need a non-global id for our directory entries so we don't paint
> >> ourselves into a corner.
> >
> > But I don't see how this is going to work. If you're using a pid_nr
> > inside a pid namespace, then you're not guaranteeing that the pid_nr
> > will be unique, so you may not be able to create th e/proc/.netns/X
> > directory. If you're using the global pid, then you're not guaranteeing
> > that it will be available upon a container restart.
>
> Right - this is the same as using other ids, which I propose.
>
> >> And honestly pid visibility is a very natural choice for which network
> >> namespaces you can see. You can see the namespace of any process you
> >> can see. Which especially means your children. It is an arbitrary
> >> rule, it is a simple rule to explain, and it works recursively unlike
> >
> > But apparently not simple enough for a simpleton like me to understand,
> > sorry :(
> >
> >> any init_net is special rule.
> >>
> >> Eric
I suspect I'm misunderstanding Eric's proposal, though.
-serge
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists