From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/27] containers: Implement containers as kernel objects Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:46:07 -0800 Message-ID: <1550634367.11684.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <1550432358.2809.21.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <155024683432.21651.14153938339749694146.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <155024685321.21651.1504201877881622756.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <19562.1550617574@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <1550629220.11684.3.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <054c1e762d28306abd4db9c42fb1c5f4261332fd.camel@themaw.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1550634368; bh=cEDK3lEfHrreJCccK0Dd5gVCu+Tr4jNJS5ay2Gnb2kc=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=pP6wgthcj49eY6pQeV91ziLwO/JyuKUsONGF8G2Y9nYvAUKFnAEevgESRJLLQMgjK utXe4l1xPNv5z2eqt5Yd/T2FHmI85T+VA71NliIvmQ6XbzfPLm+Z2q/Vwc7e3fWUta ECcVLpE/Bi/iovfDOaIsL0J1XCLE4oMYRH5BcoK0= In-Reply-To: <054c1e762d28306abd4db9c42fb1c5f4261332fd.camel@themaw.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Ian Kent , David Howells Cc: keyrings@vger.kernel.org, trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com, sfrench@samba.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, rgb@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 11:04 +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 18:20 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 23:06 +0000, David Howells wrote: > > > James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > > > I thought we got agreement years ago that containers don't > > > > exist in Linux as a single entity: they're currently a > > > > collection of cgroups and namespaces some of which may and some > > > > of which may not be local to the entity the orchestration > > > > system thinks of as a "container". > > > > > > I wasn't party to that agreement and don't feel particularly > > > bound by it. > > > > That's not at all relevant, is it? The point is we have widespread > > uses of namespaces and cgroups that span containers today meaning > > that a "container id" becomes a problematic concept. What we > > finally got to with the audit people was an unmodifiable label > > which the orchestration system can set ... can't you just use that? > > Sorry James, I fail to see how assigning an id to a collection of > objects constitutes a problem or how that could restrict the way a > container is used. Rather than rehash the whole argument again, what's the reason you can't use the audit label? It seems to do what you want in a way that doesn't cause problems. If you can just use it there's little point arguing over what is effectively a moot issue. James > Isn't the only problem here the current restrictions on the way > objects need to be combined as a set and the ability to be able add > or subtract from that set. > > Then again the notion of active vs. inactive might not be sufficient > to allow for the needed flexibility ... > > Ian > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 03:46:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/27] containers: Implement containers as kernel objects Message-Id: <1550634367.11684.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: References: <1550432358.2809.21.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <155024683432.21651.14153938339749694146.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <155024685321.21651.1504201877881622756.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <19562.1550617574@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <1550629220.11684.3.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <054c1e762d28306abd4db9c42fb1c5f4261332fd.camel@themaw.net> In-Reply-To: <054c1e762d28306abd4db9c42fb1c5f4261332fd.camel@themaw.net> To: Ian Kent , David Howells Cc: keyrings@vger.kernel.org, trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com, sfrench@samba.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, rgb@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 11:04 +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 18:20 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 23:06 +0000, David Howells wrote: > > > James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > > > I thought we got agreement years ago that containers don't > > > > exist in Linux as a single entity: they're currently a > > > > collection of cgroups and namespaces some of which may and some > > > > of which may not be local to the entity the orchestration > > > > system thinks of as a "container". > > > > > > I wasn't party to that agreement and don't feel particularly > > > bound by it. > > > > That's not at all relevant, is it? The point is we have widespread > > uses of namespaces and cgroups that span containers today meaning > > that a "container id" becomes a problematic concept. What we > > finally got to with the audit people was an unmodifiable label > > which the orchestration system can set ... can't you just use that? > > Sorry James, I fail to see how assigning an id to a collection of > objects constitutes a problem or how that could restrict the way a > container is used. Rather than rehash the whole argument again, what's the reason you can't use the audit label? It seems to do what you want in a way that doesn't cause problems. If you can just use it there's little point arguing over what is effectively a moot issue. James > Isn't the only problem here the current restrictions on the way > objects need to be combined as a set and the ability to be able add > or subtract from that set. > > Then again the notion of active vs. inactive might not be sufficient > to allow for the needed flexibility ... > > Ian >