[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87pq5loqoa.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 09:53:09 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Aristeu Rozanski <aris@...vo.org>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Controlling devices and device namespaces
Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com> writes:
>>> That's what I said a few emails ago :) The device cgroup was meant as
>>> a short-term workaround for lack of user (and device) namespaces.
>>
>> I am saying something stronger. The device cgroup doesn't seem to have
>> a practical function now.
>
> "Now" is wrong. The user namespace is not complete and not yet usable for a
> full system container. We still need the device control group.
Dropping cap mknod, and not having any device nodes you can mount
a filesystem with device nodes, plus mount namespace work to only allow
you to have access to proper device nodes should work today. And I
admit the user namespace as I have it coded in my tree does make this
simpler.
But I agree "Now" is too soon until we have actually demonstrated
something else.
Eric
--
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