http://opensolaris.org/os/community/brandz/  I would like to see if
something equal to this is on the roadmap in particular.   Being able
to run solaris and aix closed source binaries contained would be
useful.

Other useful feature is some way to share a single process between PID
containers as like a container bridge.  For containers used for
desktop applications not having a single X11 server  interfacing with
video card is a issue.

These container bridges avoid having to go threw network cards and
other means to share data between containers.  A user space solution.

I know this reduces secuirty but when you need a application form X
distrobuton and you have Y distribution and its opengl heavy you are
kinda stuffed at moment.

Final one is some form of LSM processing different.  Lot of the Linux
Secuirty channel talk about containers as light weight virtualisation
so will never need to run a OS inside with a different LSM profile to
the master OS.   If containers plan to go after brandz like containers
this needs to be made clear that LSM different processing will be
required.

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

"Peter Dolding" <oiaohm@gmail.com> writes:

> http://opensolaris.org/os/community/brandz/  I would like to see if
> something equal to this is on the roadmap in particular.   Being able
> to run solaris and aix closed source binaries contained would be
> useful.

There have been projects to do this at various times on linux.  Having
a namespace dedicated to a certain kind of application is no big deal.
Someone would need to care enough to test and implement it though.

> Other useful feature is some way to share a single process between PID
> containers as like a container bridge.  For containers used for
> desktop applications not having a single X11 server  interfacing with
> video card is a issue.

X allows network connections, and I think unix domain sockets will work.
The latter I need to check on.

The pid namespace is well defined and no a task will not be able
to change it's pid namespace while running.  That is nasty.

> These container bridges avoid having to go threw network cards and
> other means to share data between containers.  A user space solution.

There are lots of opportunities for user space solutions.

> I know this reduces secuirty but when you need a application form X
> distrobuton and you have Y distribution and its opengl heavy you are
> kinda stuffed at moment.
>
> Final one is some form of LSM processing different.  Lot of the Linux
> Secuirty channel talk about containers as light weight virtualisation
> so will never need to run a OS inside with a different LSM profile to
> the master OS.   If containers plan to go after brandz like containers
> this needs to be made clear that LSM different processing will be
> required.

We have had that discussion mostly this appears to be a measure of
matureness.

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

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Eric W. Biederman
<ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
> "Peter Dolding" <oiaohm@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> http://opensolaris.org/os/community/brandz/  I would like to see if
>> something equal to this is on the roadmap in particular.   Being able
>> to run solaris and aix closed source binaries contained would be
>> useful.
>
> There have been projects to do this at various times on linux.  Having
> a namespace dedicated to a certain kind of application is no big deal.
> Someone would need to care enough to test and implement it though.
>
>> Other useful feature is some way to share a single process between PID
>> containers as like a container bridge.  For containers used for
>> desktop applications not having a single X11 server  interfacing with
>> video card is a issue.
>
> X allows network connections, and I think unix domain sockets will work.
> The latter I need to check on.

Does to a point until you see that local X11 is using shared memory
for speed.   Hardest issue is getting GLX working.

> The pid namespace is well defined and no a task will not be able
> to change it's pid namespace while running.  That is nasty.
Ok if that is imposable to extremely risky.

What about a form of a proxy pid in the pid namespace proxying
application chatter between 1 name space to another.  Applications
being the bridge if its not possible to do it invisible to application
could be made aware of it.   So they can provide shared memory and the
like across pid namespaces. But only where they have a activated proxy
to do there bidding.  This also allows applications to maintain there
own internal secuirty between namespaces.

Ie application is 1 pid number in its source container and virtual pid
numbers in the following containers.  Symbolic linking at task level
yes a little warped.  Yes this will annoying mean a special set of
syscalls and a special set of capabilities and restrictions.  Like PID
containers starting up forbidding proxy pid's or allowing them.

If I am thinking right that avoids not be able to change it's pid.
Instead sending and receiving the messages you need in the other name
space threw a small proxy.   Yes I know that will cost some
performance.

Basically want to setup a neat universal container way of handling
stuff like http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~andreslc/xen-gl/ without having
to go network and hopefully in a way that limitations don't have to
exist since messages are really only be sent threw 1 X11 server to 1
driver system.  Only thing is really sending the correct messages to
the correct place.   There will most likely be other services were a
single entity at times is preferred.   Worst out come is if proxying
.so is required.

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

"Peter Dolding" <oiaohm@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Eric W. Biederman
> <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>> "Peter Dolding" <oiaohm@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> http://opensolaris.org/os/community/brandz/  I would like to see if
>>> something equal to this is on the roadmap in particular.   Being able
>>> to run solaris and aix closed source binaries contained would be
>>> useful.
>>
>> There have been projects to do this at various times on linux.  Having
>> a namespace dedicated to a certain kind of application is no big deal.
>> Someone would need to care enough to test and implement it though.
>>
>>> Other useful feature is some way to share a single process between PID
>>> containers as like a container bridge.  For containers used for
>>> desktop applications not having a single X11 server  interfacing with
>>> video card is a issue.
>>
>> X allows network connections, and I think unix domain sockets will work.
>> The latter I need to check on.
>
> Does to a point until you see that local X11 is using shared memory
> for speed.   Hardest issue is getting GLX working.

That is easier in general.  Don't unshare the sysvipc namespace.
Or share the mount of /dev/shmem at least for the file X cares about.

>> The pid namespace is well defined and no a task will not be able
>> to change it's pid namespace while running.  That is nasty.
> Ok if that is imposable to extremely risky.
>
> What about a form of a proxy pid in the pid namespace proxying
> application chatter between 1 name space to another.  Applications
> being the bridge if its not possible to do it invisible to application
> could be made aware of it.   So they can provide shared memory and the
> like across pid namespaces. But only where they have a activated proxy
> to do there bidding.  This also allows applications to maintain there
> own internal secuirty between namespaces.
>
> Ie application is 1 pid number in its source container and virtual pid
> numbers in the following containers.  Symbolic linking at task level
> yes a little warped.  Yes this will annoying mean a special set of
> syscalls and a special set of capabilities and restrictions.  Like PID
> containers starting up forbidding proxy pid's or allowing them.
>
> If I am thinking right that avoids not be able to change it's pid.
> Instead sending and receiving the messages you need in the other name
> space threw a small proxy.   Yes I know that will cost some
> performance.

Proxy pids don't actually do anything for you, unless you want to send
signals.  Because all of the namespaces are distinct.  So even at the
best of it you can see the X server but it still can't use your
network sockets or ipc shm.

Better is working out the details on how to manipulate multiple
sysvipc and network namespaces from a single application.  Mostly
that is supported now by the objects there is just no easy way
of dealing with it.

> Basically want to setup a neat universal container way of handling
> stuff like http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~andreslc/xen-gl/ without having
> to go network and hopefully in a way that limitations don't have to
> exist since messages are really only be sent threw 1 X11 server to 1
> driver system.  Only thing is really sending the correct messages to
> the correct place.   There will most likely be other services were a
> single entity at times is preferred.   Worst out come is if proxying
> .so is required.

Yes.  I agree that is essentially desirable.  Given that I think
high end video card actually have multiple hardware contexts that
can be mapped into different user space processes there may be other
ways of handling this.

Ideally we can find a high performance solution to X that also gives
us good isolation and migration properties.  Certainly something to talk
about tomorrow in the conference.

Eric

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

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Peter Dolding" <oiaohm@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Eric W. Biederman
>> <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>>> "Peter Dolding" <oiaohm@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> http://opensolaris.org/os/community/brandz/  I would like to see if
>>>> something equal to this is on the roadmap in particular.   Being able
>>>> to run solaris and aix closed source binaries contained would be
>>>> useful.
>>> There have been projects to do this at various times on linux.  Having
>>> a namespace dedicated to a certain kind of application is no big deal.
>>> Someone would need to care enough to test and implement it though.
>>>
>>>> Other useful feature is some way to share a single process between PID
>>>> containers as like a container bridge.  For containers used for
>>>> desktop applications not having a single X11 server  interfacing with
>>>> video card is a issue.
>>> X allows network connections, and I think unix domain sockets will work.
>>> The latter I need to check on.
>> Does to a point until you see that local X11 is using shared memory
>> for speed.   Hardest issue is getting GLX working.
> 
> That is easier in general.  Don't unshare the sysvipc namespace.
> Or share the mount of /dev/shmem at least for the file X cares about.
> 
>>> The pid namespace is well defined and no a task will not be able
>>> to change it's pid namespace while running.  That is nasty.
>> Ok if that is imposable to extremely risky.
>>
>> What about a form of a proxy pid in the pid namespace proxying
>> application chatter between 1 name space to another.  Applications
>> being the bridge if its not possible to do it invisible to application
>> could be made aware of it.   So they can provide shared memory and the
>> like across pid namespaces. But only where they have a activated proxy
>> to do there bidding.  This also allows applications to maintain there
>> own internal secuirty between namespaces.
>>
>> Ie application is 1 pid number in its source container and virtual pid
>> numbers in the following containers.  Symbolic linking at task level
>> yes a little warped.  Yes this will annoying mean a special set of
>> syscalls and a special set of capabilities and restrictions.  Like PID
>> containers starting up forbidding proxy pid's or allowing them.
>>
>> If I am thinking right that avoids not be able to change it's pid.
>> Instead sending and receiving the messages you need in the other name
>> space threw a small proxy.   Yes I know that will cost some
>> performance.
> 
> Proxy pids don't actually do anything for you, unless you want to send
> signals.  Because all of the namespaces are distinct.  So even at the
> best of it you can see the X server but it still can't use your
> network sockets or ipc shm.
> 
> Better is working out the details on how to manipulate multiple
> sysvipc and network namespaces from a single application.  Mostly
> that is supported now by the objects there is just no easy way
> of dealing with it.
> 
>> Basically want to setup a neat universal container way of handling
>> stuff like http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~andreslc/xen-gl/ without having
>> to go network and hopefully in a way that limitations don't have to
>> exist since messages are really only be sent threw 1 X11 server to 1
>> driver system.  Only thing is really sending the correct messages to
>> the correct place.   There will most likely be other services were a
>> single entity at times is preferred.   Worst out come is if proxying
>> .so is required.
> 
> Yes.  I agree that is essentially desirable.  Given that I think
> high end video card actually have multiple hardware contexts that
> can be mapped into different user space processes there may be other
> ways of handling this.
> 
> Ideally we can find a high performance solution to X that also gives
> us good isolation and migration properties.  Certainly something to talk
> about tomorrow in the conference.

In particular, if you wish to share private resources of a container
between more than a single container, then you won't be able to use
checkpoint/restart on neither container (unless you make special
provisions in the code).

I agree with Eric that the way to handle this is via virtualization
as opposed to direct sharing. The same goes for other hardware, e.g.
in the context of a user desktop - /dev/rtc, sound, and so on. My
experience is that a proxy/virtualized device is what we probably
want.

Oren.

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