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: <20140603172631.GL9714@ubuntumail>
Date:	Tue, 3 Jun 2014 17:26:31 +0000
From:	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
To:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Cc:	Marian Marinov <mm@...com>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	LXC development mailing-list 
	<lxc-devel@...ts.linuxcontainers.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Per-user namespace process accounting

Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul@...allels.com):
> On 05/29/2014 07:32 PM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I vote for non-stackable way too. Maybe on generic VFS level so that filesystems 
> don't bother with it. From what I've seen, even simple stacking is quite a challenge.

Do you have any ideas for how to go about it?  It seems like we'd have
to have separate inodes per mapping for each file, which is why of
course stacking seems "natural" here.

Trying to catch the uid/gid at every kernel-userspace crossing seems
like a design regression from the current userns approach.  I suppose we
could continue in the kuid theme and introduce a iiud/igid for the
in-kernel inode uid/gid owners.  Then allow a user privileged in some
ns to create a new mount associated with a different mapping for any
ids over which he is privileged.
--
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/