linux-kernel - Re: Detecting if you are running in a container

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:	Mon, 10 Oct 2011 19:05:30 -0700
From:	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
To:	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, harald@...hat.com, david@...ar.dk,
	greg@...ah.com, Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Linux Containers <lxc-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...e.fr>,
	Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>
Subject: Re: Detecting if you are running in a container

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:32:01PM -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 01:59:10PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de> writes:
> > 
> > > To make a standard distribution run nicely in a Linux container you
> > > usually have to make quite a number of modifications to it and disable
> > > certain things from the boot process. Ideally however, one could simply
> > > boot the same image on a real machine and in a container and would just
> > > do the right thing, fully stateless. And for that you need to be able to
> > > detect containers, and currently you can't.
> > 
> > I agree getting to the point where we can run a standard distribution
> > unmodified in a container sounds like a reasonable goal.
> 
> Hmm, interesting.  It's not clear to me that running a full standard
> distribution in a container is always going to be what everyone wants
> to do.
> 
> The whole point of containers versus VM's is that containers are
> lighter weight.  And one of the ways that containers can be lighter
> weight is if you don't have to have N copies of udev, dbus, running in
> each container/VM.
> 
> If you end up so much overhead to provide the desired security and/or
> performance isolation, then it becomes fair to ask the question
> whether you might as well pay a tad bit more and get even better
> security and isolation by using a VM solution....
> 
> 	     	       	  	     - Ted

Yes, it does detract from the unique advantages of using a container.
However, I think the value here is not the effeciency of the initial
system configuration but the fact that it gives users a better place to
start.

Right now we're effectively asking users to start with non-working
and/or unfamiliar systems and repair them until they work.

By enabling unmodified distro installs in a container we're starting
at the other end. The choices may not be the most efficient but the
user may begin tuning from a working configuration. They can learn
about and tune those parts that prove significant for their workload.
This is better because in the end it's not just about how efficient the
user  can make their containers but how much effort they will spend
achieving and maintainingg that efficiency over time.

Cheers,
	-Matt Helsley

--
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/