Message-ID: <CAFLxGvwy7A6yFBW4vNqsD5T4ghAwDqMqRmKP3a4YEOPFqeARDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 16 May 2014 09:56:55 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
To:	LXC development mailing-list <lxc-devel@...ts.linuxcontainers.org>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Subject: Re: [lxc-devel] [RFC PATCH 00/11] Add support for devtmpfs in user namespaces

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Michael H. Warfield <mhw@...tsend.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 15:15 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 05:42:54PM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote:
>> > What exactly defines '"normal" use case for a container'?
>
>> Well, I'd say "acting like a virtual machine" is a good start :)
>
> Ok...  And virtual machines (VirtualBox, VMware, etc, etc) have hot plug
> USB devices.  I use the USB hotplug with VirtualBox.  I plug a
> configured USB device in and the VirtualBox VM grabs it.  Virtual
> machines have loopback devices.  I've used them and using them in
> containers is significantly more efficient.  VirtualBox has remote audio
> and a host of other device features.
>
> Now we have some agreement.  Normal is "acting like a virtual machine".
> That's a goal I can agree with.  I want to work toward that goal of
> containers "acting like a virtual machine" just running on a common
> kernel with the host.  It's a challenge.  We're getting there.
>
>> > Not too long ago much of what we can now do with network namespaces
>> > was not a normal container use case.  Neither "you can't do it now"
>> > nor "I don't use it like that" should be grounds for a pre-emptive
>> > nack.  "It will horribly break security assumptions" certainly would
>> > be.
>
>> I agree, and maybe we will get there over time, but this patch is nto
>> the way to do that.
>
> Ok...  We have a goal.  Now we can haggle over the details (to
> paraphrase a joke that's as old as I am).
>
>> > That's not to say there might not be good reasons why this in particular
>> > is not appropriate, but ISTM if things are going to be nacked without
>> > consideration of the patchset itself, we ought to be having a ksummit
>> > session to come to a consensus [ or receive a decree, presumably by you :)
>> > but after we have a chance to make our case ] on what things are going to
>> > be un/acceptable.
>
>> I already stood up and publically said this last year at Plumbers, why
>> is anything now different?
>
> Not much really.  The reality is that more and more people are trying to
> use hotplug devices, network interfaces, and loopback devices in
> containers just like they would in full para or hw virt machines.  We're
> trying to make them work, without it looking like a kludge.  I
> personally agree with you that much of this can be done in host user
> space and, coming out of LinuxPlumbers last year, I've implemented some
> ideas that did not require kernel patches that achieve some of my goals.
>
>> And this patchset is proof of why it's not a good idea.  You really
>> didn't do anything with all of the namespace stuff, except change loop.
>> That's the only thing that cares, so, just do it there, like I said to
>> do so, last August.
>
>> And you are ignoring the notifications to userspace and how namespaces
>> here would deal with that.
>
> That's a problem to deal with.  I don't thing anyone is ignoring them.
>
>> > > > Serge mentioned something to me about a loopdevfs (?) thing that someone
>> > > > else is working on.  That would seem to be a better solution in this
>> > > > particular case but I don't know much about it or where it's at.
>> > >
>> > > Ok, let's see those patches then.
>> >
>> > I think Seth has a git tree ready, but not sure which branch he'd want
>> > us to look at.
>> >
>> > Splitting a namespaced devtmpfs from loopdevfs discussion might be
>> > sensible.  However, in defense of a namespaced devtmpfs I'd say
>> > that for userspace to, at every container startup, bind-mount in
>> > devices from the global devtmpfs into a private tmpfs (for systemd's
>> > sake it can't just be on the container rootfs), seems like something
>> > worth avoiding.
>
>> I think having to pick and choose what device nodes you want in a
>> container is a good thing.
>
> Both static and dynamic devices.  It's got to support hotplug.  We have
> (I have) use cases.  That's what I'm trying to do with host udev rules
> and some custom configurations.  I can play games with udev rules.
> Maybe we can keep the user spaces policies in user space and not burden
> the kernel.
>
>> Becides, you would have to do the same thing
>> in the kernel anyway, what's wrong with userspace making the decision
>> here, especially as it knows exactly what it wants to do much more so
>> than the kernel ever can.
>
> IMHO, there's nothing wrong with that as long as we agree on how it's to
> be done.  I'm not convinced that it can all be done in user space and
> I'm not convinced that name spaced devtmpfs is the magic pill to make it
> all go away either.  Making the user space make the decisions and having
> the kernel enforce them is a principle worth considering.
>
>> > PS - Apparently both parallels and Michael independently
>> > project devices which are hot-plugged on the host into containers.
>> > That also seems like something worth talking about (best practices,
>> > shortcomings, use cases not met by it, any ways tha the kernel can
>> > help out) at ksummit/linuxcon.
>
>> I was told that containers would never want devices hotplugged into
>> them.
>
> Interesting.  You were told they (who they?) would never want them?  Who
> said that?  I would have never thought that given that other
> implementations can provide that.  I would certainly want them.  Seems
> strange to explicitly relegate LXC containers to being second class
> citizens behind OpenVZ, Parallels, BSD Gaols, and Solaris Zones.

How do these solution deal with dynamic devices?

> I might believe you were never told they would need them, but that's a
> totally different sense.  Are we going to tell RedHat and the Docker
> people that LXC is an inferior technology that is complex and unreliable
> (to quote another poster) compared to these others?  They're saying this
> will be enterprise technology.  If I go to Amazon AWS or other VPS
> services and compare, are we not going to stand on a level playing
> field?  Admittedly, I don't expect Amazon AWS to provide me with serial
> consoles, but I do expect to be able to mount file system images within
> my VPS.

I didn't say that containers are unreliable. They work.
Red hat is well aware of the problems (okay, say complexities) of
containers.
Docker is a completely different story. :-)

>> What use case has this happening / needed?
>
> Hello?  Dink...  Dink...  Is this microphone on?  I've already detailed
> out a use case (serial USB console case) that I'm dealing with now.
> Now, I'm dealing with it in host user space and that's probably the
> correct answer there.  I probably don't need kernel space help in this
> particular case.  There's still a lot of bolt holes to fill with bolts
> though for the more general case.  It's not the common case but it is a
> valid legitimate use case and one that would be expected of a "virtual
> machine" (VirtualBox can handle it - waste of computing cycles that it
> is).  The loopback device case is even more common and, currently,
> rather inconsistent but strangle self consistent and workable.
>
> In the 80/20 case, I agree we can and should deal with this in the host
> user space as much as possible.  That's the realm I'm working within.
> Seth and others seem to want more in the namespace region and I'm not
> convinced.  But, I'm not convinced we can accomplish everything in user
> space either.
>
> We've got use cases and we've got problem sets.  Don't give into
> confirmational bias and automatically discount the use cases that have
> been mentioned and then assume there are none.  I don't know if Seth's
> paths are part of the answer or not.  I'm not pro Seth's patches or
> against Seth's patches but we've got a need in search of solutions.
>
>> thanks,
>
>> greg k-h
>
> Regards,
> Mike
> --
> Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 978-7061 |  mhw@...tsEnd.com
>    /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/          | (678) 463-0932 |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
>    NIC whois: MHW9          | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
>  PGP Key: 0x674627FF        | possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lxc-devel mailing list
> lxc-devel@...ts.linuxcontainers.org
> http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel
>



-- 
Thanks,
//richard
--
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