[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG48ez3HnkRM6bUZMNjuTy5DgujgamEKhZOEWDfCjqW7fTJSzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 04:51:02 +0100
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Cc: Laurent Vivier <laurent@...ier.eu>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, dima@...sta.com,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/1] ns: introduce binfmt_misc namespace
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 3:59 AM James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 11:52 +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Any comment on this last version?
> >
> > Any chance to be merged?
>
> I've got a use case for this: I went to one of the Graphene talks in
> Edinburgh and it struck me that we seem to keep reinventing the type of
> sandboxing that qemu-user already does. However if you want to do an
> x86 on x86 sandbox, you can't currently use the binfmt_misc mechanism
> because that has you running *every* binary on the system emulated.
> Doing it per user namespace fixes this problem and allows us to at
> least cut down on all the pointless duplication.
Waaaaaait. What? qemu-user does not do "sandboxing". qemu-user makes
your code slower and *LESS* secure. As far as I know, qemu-user is
only intended for purposes like development and testing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists