On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 01:34:09PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 01:52 +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 10:18:14PM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >> > Cedric has previously sent out a patchset
> >> > (http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/containers/2006-August/000078.html)
> >> > impplementing the very basics of a user namespace. It ignores
> >> > filesystem access checks, so that uid 502 in one namespace could
> >> > access files belonging to uid 502 in another namespace, if the
> >> > containers were so set up.
> >> >
> >> > This isn't necessarily bad, since proper container setup should
> >> > prevent problems. However there has been concern, so here is a
> >> > patchset which takes one course in addressing the concern.
> >> >
> >> > It adds a user namespace pointer to every superblock, and to
> >> > enhances fsuid equivalence checks with a (inode->i_sb->s_uid_ns ==
> >> > current->nsproxy->uid_ns) comparison.
> >> 
> >> I don't consider that a good idea as it means that a filesystem
> >> (or to be precise, a superblock) can only belong to one specific
> >> namespace, which is not very useful for shared setups
> >> 
> >> Linux-VServer provides a mechanism to do per inode (and per
> >> nfs mount) tagging for similar 'security' and more important
> >> for disk space accounting and limiting, which permits to have
> >> different disk limits, quota and access on a shared partition
> >> 
> >> i.e. I do not like it
> >
> > Indeed. I discussed this with Eric at the kernel summit this summer and
> > explained my reservations. As far as I'm concerned, tagging superblocks
> > with a container label is an unacceptable hack since it completely
> > breaks NFS caching semantics.
> 
> As I recall there are two basic issues.
> 
> Putting the default on the mount structure instead of the superblock
> for filesystems that are not uid namespaces aware sounded reasonable,
> and allowed certain classes of sharing between namespaces where they
> agreed on a subset of the uids (especially for read-only data).

yes, that is especially interesting for --bind mounts
when you 'know' that you will dedicate a certain 
sub-tree to one context/guest

> The other was to have a mechanism that allows a uid namespace aware
> filesystem (like some of the distributed filesystems can be) to perform
> the mapping on their own.

Linux-VServer currently provides different 'tagging'
methods to make filesystems context aware, some of
them are based on reusing some (upper 8/16) bits of
uid and gid, others store the context id inside 
(currently) unused places in the on disk inodes

those are currently working for ext2/3, jfs, xfs,
reiser and ocfs2 as well as nfs

HTH,
Herbert

> Some mostly this is a case of simply not going far enough in the uid
> namespace direction.
> 
> Eric
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers