linux-kernel - Re: [lxc-devel] device namespaces

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140924163816.GE3865@ubuntumail>
Date:	Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:38:16 +0000
From:	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	LXC development mailing-list 
	<lxc-devel@...ts.linuxcontainers.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
	fuse-devel <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [lxc-devel] device namespaces

Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@...ssion.com):
> riya khanna <riyakhanna1983@...il.com> writes:
> 
> > (Please pardon multiple emails, artifact of merging all separate conversations)
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback! 
> >
> > Letting the kernel know about what devices a container could access (based on
> > device cgroups) and having devtmpfs in the kernel create device nodes for a
> > container that map to corresponding CUSE nodes is what I thought of. For
> > example, "echo 29:0 > /proc/<pid>/devices" would prepare a virtual framebuffer
> > (based on real fb0 SCREENINFO properties) for this process provided permissions
> > allow this operation. To view the framebuffer, the CUSE based virtual device
> > would talk to the actual hardware. Since namespaces would have different view of
> > the underlying devices, "sysfs" has to made aware of this as well. 
> >
> > Please let me know your inputs. Thanks again!
> 
> The solution hugely depends on what you are trying to do with it.
> 
> The situation today is that device nodes are slowly fading out.  In
> another 20 years linux may not have any device nodes at all.
> 
> Therefore the question becomes what are you trying to support.
> 
> If it is just filtering of existing device nodes.  We can do a pretty
> good approximation with bind mounts.
> 
> If you want to emulate a device you can use normal fuse (not cuse).
> As normal fuse file will support arbitrary ioctls.
> 
> There are a few cases where it is desirable to emulate what devpts
> does for allowing arbitrary users to creating virtual devices in the
> kernel.  Loop devices in particular.
> 
> Ultimately given the existence of device hotplug I don't see any call
> for being able to create device nodes with well known device numbers
> (fundamentally what a device namespace would be about).
> 
> The conversation last year was about people wanting to multiplex devices
> that don't have multiplexer support in the kernel.  If that is your
> desire I think it is entirely reasonable to device type by device type
> add support for multiplexing that device type to the kernel, or
> potentially just use fuse or cuse to implement your multiplexer in
> userspace but that has the potential to be unusably slow.

It would be helpful to have a list of devices that may want that
multiplexing.  Is it really just loop and graphics drivers?
--
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/