[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1495534193.2564.3.camel@themaw.net>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 18:09:53 +0800
From: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, trondmy@...marydata.com
Cc: mszeredi@...hat.com, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, jlayton@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
ebiederm@...ssion.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Make containers kernel objects
On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 17:22 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Here are a set of patches to define a container object for the kernel and
> to provide some methods to create and manipulate them.
>
> The reason I think this is necessary is that the kernel has no idea how to
> direct upcalls to what userspace considers to be a container - current
> Linux practice appears to make a "container" just an arbitrarily chosen
> junction of namespaces, control groups and files, which may be changed
> individually within the "container".
>
> The kernel upcall mechanism then needs to decide which set of namespaces,
> etc., it must exec the appropriate upcall program. Examples of this
> include:
>
> (1) The DNS resolver. The DNS cache in the kernel should probably be
> per-network namespace, but in userspace the program, its libraries and
> its config data are associated with a mount tree and a user namespace
> and it gets run in a particular pid namespace.
>
> (2) NFS ID mapper. The NFS ID mapping cache should also probably be
> per-network namespace.
>
> (3) nfsdcltrack. A way for NFSD to access stable storage for tracking
> of persistent state. Again, network-namespace dependent, but also
> perhaps mount-namespace dependent.
>
> (4) General request-key upcalls. Not particularly namespace dependent,
> apart from keyrings being somewhat governed by the user namespace and
> the upcall being configured by the mount namespace.
>
> These patches are built on top of the mount context patchset so that
> namespaces can be properly propagated over submounts/automounts.
>
> These patches implement a container object that holds the following things:
>
> (1) Namespaces.
>
> (2) A root directory.
>
> (3) A set of processes, including a designated 'init' process.
>
> (4) The creator's credentials, including ownership.
>
> (5) A place to hang security for the container, allowing policies to be
> set per-container.
>
> I also want to add:
>
> (6) Control groups.
>
> (7) A per-container keyring that can be added to from outside of the
> container, even once the container is live, for the provision of
> filesystem authentication/encryption keys in advance of the container
> being started.
It's hard to decide which of these has higher priority, I think both essential
to a container implementation.
Ian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists