linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Per-user namespace process accounting

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]

Message-ID: <20140529153232.GB9714@ubuntumail>
Date:	Thu, 29 May 2014 15:32:32 +0000
From:	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
To:	Marian Marinov <mm@...com>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LXC development mailing-list 
	<lxc-devel@...ts.linuxcontainers.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Per-user namespace process accounting

Quoting Marian Marinov (mm@...com):
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 05/29/2014 01:06 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Marian Marinov <mm@...com> writes:
> > 
> >> Hello,
> >> 
> >> I have the following proposition.
> >> 
> >> Number of currently running processes is accounted at the root user namespace. The problem I'm facing is that
> >> multiple containers in different user namespaces share the process counters.
> > 
> > That is deliberate.
> 
> And I understand that very well ;)
> 
> > 
> >> So if containerX runs 100 with UID 99, containerY should have NPROC limit of above 100 in order to execute any 
> >> processes with ist own UID 99.
> >> 
> >> I know that some of you will tell me that I should not provision all of my containers with the same UID/GID maps,
> >> but this brings another problem.
> >> 
> >> We are provisioning the containers from a template. The template has a lot of files 500k and more. And chowning
> >> these causes a lot of I/O and also slows down provisioning considerably.
> >> 
> >> The other problem is that when we migrate one container from one host machine to another the IDs may be already
> >> in use on the new machine and we need to chown all the files again.
> > 
> > You should have the same uid allocations for all machines in your fleet as much as possible.   That has been true
> > ever since NFS was invented and is not new here.  You can avoid the cost of chowning if you untar your files inside
> > of your user namespace.  You can have different maps per machine if you are crazy enough to do that.  You can even
> > have shared uids that you use to share files between containers as long as none of those files is setuid.  And map
> > those shared files to some kind of nobody user in your user namespace.
> 
> We are not using NFS. We are using a shared block storage that offers us snapshots. So provisioning new containers is
> extremely cheep and fast. Comparing that with untar is comparing a race car with Smart. Yes it can be done and no, I
> do not believe we should go backwards.
> 
> We do not share filesystems between containers, we offer them block devices.

Yes, this is a real nuisance for openstack style deployments.

One nice solution to this imo would be a very thin stackable filesystem
which does uid shifting, or, better yet, a non-stackable way of shifting
uids at mount.
--
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/