From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cedric Le Goater Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] [RFC] netns: enable cross-ve Unix sockets Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:07:40 +0200 Message-ID: <48E3923C.5070603@fr.ibm.com> References: <1222858454-7843-1-git-send-email-den@openvz.org> <48E35B4C.1040303@fr.ibm.com> <1222860776.23573.49.camel@iris.sw.ru> <48E3653C.1070701@fr.ibm.com> <1222862583.23573.54.camel@iris.sw.ru> <48E36ABF.8030908@fr.ibm.com> <48E36BFA.3040904@openvz.org> <48E36DA0.9080400@fr.ibm.com> <48E36FDA.5090808@openvz.org> <48E37637.8080408@fr.ibm.com> <48E3800F.1020806@fr.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, Denis Lunev , Pavel Emelyanov , benjamin.thery@bull.net To: Daniel Lezcano Return-path: Received: from mtagate4.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.137]:49760 "EHLO mtagate4.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752475AbYJAPHs (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:07:48 -0400 Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate4.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m91F7j4m057578 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:07:45 GMT Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.216]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id m91F7iVD2982004 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 16:07:44 +0100 Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m91F7htJ006343 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 16:07:44 +0100 In-Reply-To: <48E3800F.1020806@fr.ibm.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Cedric Le Goater wrote: >> Pavel Emelyanov wrote: >>> Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>> Pavel Emelyanov wrote: >>>>>> So there are 2 cases: >>>>>> * full isolation : restriction on VPS >>>>>> * partial isolation : no restriction but *perhaps* problem when migrating >>>>>> >>>>>> Looks like we need an option per namespace to reduce the isolation for >>>>>> af_unix sockets :) >>>>>> - on (default): current behaviour => full isolation >>>>>> - off : partial isolation >>>>> You mean some sysctl, that enables/disables this check in unix_find_socket_byinode? >>>> Yes. >>> OK. Den, please, do :) >> hmm, would that allow sibling namespaces to connect to each other ? If so, >> I'm not in favor of such a solution. >> >> I understand the need. we had a similar issue with the command line tool >> pgsl. Could we work something out with the capabilities ? or make an >> exception if your ->nsproxy->net_ns == init_net ? > > Why capabilities is better than a simple sysctl ? because it depends on the current process privilege and not just some random process. > Making an exception for init_net will break the nested containers no ? may be. I don't know how this is implemented. if we break isolation, my feeling is that we should only do it for a parent namespace. It just feel wrong to allow sibling namespaces to connect to each other. C.