From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB09C43381 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 03:46:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D906E21738 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 03:46:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="pP6wgthc" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729194AbfBTDqK (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:46:10 -0500 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:45896 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725916AbfBTDqJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:46:09 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3410F8EE235; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:46:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 54zIebkzwKQP; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:46:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [153.66.254.194] (unknown [50.35.68.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 763748EE21A; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:46:08 -0800 (PST) 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= Message-ID: <1550634367.11684.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/27] containers: Implement containers as kernel objects From: James Bottomley 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 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:46:07 -0800 In-Reply-To: <054c1e762d28306abd4db9c42fb1c5f4261332fd.camel@themaw.net> 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@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 >