Quoting David Howells (dhowells@redhat.com):
> 
> Am I right in thinking that a UID in one container is not necessarily
> equivalent to the numerically equivalent UID in another container?
> 
> If that's the case then the key management code will need changing as it
> assumes all keys belonging to one numeric UID eat out of the same quota and
> the numeric UIDs are used in security checks.
> 
> Furthermore, processes in one container can access keys created by a process
> in another container by ID.  Is this desirable or not?
> 
> David

Yes, the confusion comes from using the word 'container' which doesn't
really exist.  The user namespaces (CLONE_NEWUSER) are what provide
separate of uids.  We want uid 5 in one user namespace to have
completely separate set of keys from uid 5 in another user namespace.

This isn't yet a crucial thing to get right as the user namespaces are
only partially implemented, but it's certainly a good thing to be looking
at and fix when convenient to do so.  It looks like maybe just adding
a struct user_namespace * to a struct key should suffice.

-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers