From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cgroup namespaces: add a 'nsroot=' mountinfo field Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:50:33 -0400 Message-ID: <20160413185033.GH3676@htj.duckdns.org> References: <20160321234133.GA22463@mail.hallyn.com> <20160413175736.GC3676@htj.duckdns.org> <20160413184639.GA29483@mail.hallyn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160413184639.GA29483-7LNsyQBKDXoIagZqoN9o3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, adityakali-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, Linux Containers , "Eric W. Biederman" , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, lkml List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Hello, Serge. On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 01:46:39PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > It's not a leak of any information we're trying to hide. I realize > something like 8 years have passed, but I still basically go by the > ksummit guidance that containers are ok but the kernel's first priority > is to facilitate containers but not trick containers into thinking > they're not containerized. So long as the container is properly set > up, I don't think there's anything the workload could do with the > nsroot= info other than *know* that it is in a ns cgroup. > > If we did change that guidance, there's a slew of proc info that we > could better virtualize :) I see. I'm just wondering because the information here seems a bit gratuituous. Isn't the only thing necessary telling whether the root is bind mounted or namescoped? Wouldn't simple "nsroot" work for that purpose? Thanks. -- tejun