From: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>
To: LXC development mailing-list <lxc-devel@lists.linuxcontainers.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>
Subject: Re: [lxc-devel] [RFC PATCH 00/11] Add support for devtmpfs in user namespaces
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 09:56:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFLxGvwy7A6yFBW4vNqsD5T4ghAwDqMqRmKP3a4YEOPFqeARDg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1400204545.7699.128.camel@canyon.ip6.wittsend.com>
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Michael H. Warfield <mhw@wittsend.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 15:15 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 05:42:54PM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote:
>> > What exactly defines '"normal" use case for a container'?
>
>> Well, I'd say "acting like a virtual machine" is a good start :)
>
> Ok... And virtual machines (VirtualBox, VMware, etc, etc) have hot plug
> USB devices. I use the USB hotplug with VirtualBox. I plug a
> configured USB device in and the VirtualBox VM grabs it. Virtual
> machines have loopback devices. I've used them and using them in
> containers is significantly more efficient. VirtualBox has remote audio
> and a host of other device features.
>
> Now we have some agreement. Normal is "acting like a virtual machine".
> That's a goal I can agree with. I want to work toward that goal of
> containers "acting like a virtual machine" just running on a common
> kernel with the host. It's a challenge. We're getting there.
>
>> > Not too long ago much of what we can now do with network namespaces
>> > was not a normal container use case. Neither "you can't do it now"
>> > nor "I don't use it like that" should be grounds for a pre-emptive
>> > nack. "It will horribly break security assumptions" certainly would
>> > be.
>
>> I agree, and maybe we will get there over time, but this patch is nto
>> the way to do that.
>
> Ok... We have a goal. Now we can haggle over the details (to
> paraphrase a joke that's as old as I am).
>
>> > That's not to say there might not be good reasons why this in particular
>> > is not appropriate, but ISTM if things are going to be nacked without
>> > consideration of the patchset itself, we ought to be having a ksummit
>> > session to come to a consensus [ or receive a decree, presumably by you :)
>> > but after we have a chance to make our case ] on what things are going to
>> > be un/acceptable.
>
>> I already stood up and publically said this last year at Plumbers, why
>> is anything now different?
>
> Not much really. The reality is that more and more people are trying to
> use hotplug devices, network interfaces, and loopback devices in
> containers just like they would in full para or hw virt machines. We're
> trying to make them work, without it looking like a kludge. I
> personally agree with you that much of this can be done in host user
> space and, coming out of LinuxPlumbers last year, I've implemented some
> ideas that did not require kernel patches that achieve some of my goals.
>
>> And this patchset is proof of why it's not a good idea. You really
>> didn't do anything with all of the namespace stuff, except change loop.
>> That's the only thing that cares, so, just do it there, like I said to
>> do so, last August.
>
>> And you are ignoring the notifications to userspace and how namespaces
>> here would deal with that.
>
> That's a problem to deal with. I don't thing anyone is ignoring them.
>
>> > > > Serge mentioned something to me about a loopdevfs (?) thing that someone
>> > > > else is working on. That would seem to be a better solution in this
>> > > > particular case but I don't know much about it or where it's at.
>> > >
>> > > Ok, let's see those patches then.
>> >
>> > I think Seth has a git tree ready, but not sure which branch he'd want
>> > us to look at.
>> >
>> > Splitting a namespaced devtmpfs from loopdevfs discussion might be
>> > sensible. However, in defense of a namespaced devtmpfs I'd say
>> > that for userspace to, at every container startup, bind-mount in
>> > devices from the global devtmpfs into a private tmpfs (for systemd's
>> > sake it can't just be on the container rootfs), seems like something
>> > worth avoiding.
>
>> I think having to pick and choose what device nodes you want in a
>> container is a good thing.
>
> Both static and dynamic devices. It's got to support hotplug. We have
> (I have) use cases. That's what I'm trying to do with host udev rules
> and some custom configurations. I can play games with udev rules.
> Maybe we can keep the user spaces policies in user space and not burden
> the kernel.
>
>> Becides, you would have to do the same thing
>> in the kernel anyway, what's wrong with userspace making the decision
>> here, especially as it knows exactly what it wants to do much more so
>> than the kernel ever can.
>
> IMHO, there's nothing wrong with that as long as we agree on how it's to
> be done. I'm not convinced that it can all be done in user space and
> I'm not convinced that name spaced devtmpfs is the magic pill to make it
> all go away either. Making the user space make the decisions and having
> the kernel enforce them is a principle worth considering.
>
>> > PS - Apparently both parallels and Michael independently
>> > project devices which are hot-plugged on the host into containers.
>> > That also seems like something worth talking about (best practices,
>> > shortcomings, use cases not met by it, any ways tha the kernel can
>> > help out) at ksummit/linuxcon.
>
>> I was told that containers would never want devices hotplugged into
>> them.
>
> Interesting. You were told they (who they?) would never want them? Who
> said that? I would have never thought that given that other
> implementations can provide that. I would certainly want them. Seems
> strange to explicitly relegate LXC containers to being second class
> citizens behind OpenVZ, Parallels, BSD Gaols, and Solaris Zones.
How do these solution deal with dynamic devices?
> I might believe you were never told they would need them, but that's a
> totally different sense. Are we going to tell RedHat and the Docker
> people that LXC is an inferior technology that is complex and unreliable
> (to quote another poster) compared to these others? They're saying this
> will be enterprise technology. If I go to Amazon AWS or other VPS
> services and compare, are we not going to stand on a level playing
> field? Admittedly, I don't expect Amazon AWS to provide me with serial
> consoles, but I do expect to be able to mount file system images within
> my VPS.
I didn't say that containers are unreliable. They work.
Red hat is well aware of the problems (okay, say complexities) of
containers.
Docker is a completely different story. :-)
>> What use case has this happening / needed?
>
> Hello? Dink... Dink... Is this microphone on? I've already detailed
> out a use case (serial USB console case) that I'm dealing with now.
> Now, I'm dealing with it in host user space and that's probably the
> correct answer there. I probably don't need kernel space help in this
> particular case. There's still a lot of bolt holes to fill with bolts
> though for the more general case. It's not the common case but it is a
> valid legitimate use case and one that would be expected of a "virtual
> machine" (VirtualBox can handle it - waste of computing cycles that it
> is). The loopback device case is even more common and, currently,
> rather inconsistent but strangle self consistent and workable.
>
> In the 80/20 case, I agree we can and should deal with this in the host
> user space as much as possible. That's the realm I'm working within.
> Seth and others seem to want more in the namespace region and I'm not
> convinced. But, I'm not convinced we can accomplish everything in user
> space either.
>
> We've got use cases and we've got problem sets. Don't give into
> confirmational bias and automatically discount the use cases that have
> been mentioned and then assume there are none. I don't know if Seth's
> paths are part of the answer or not. I'm not pro Seth's patches or
> against Seth's patches but we've got a need in search of solutions.
>
>> thanks,
>
>> greg k-h
>
> Regards,
> Mike
> --
> Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 978-7061 | mhw@WittsEnd.com
> /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
> NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
> PGP Key: 0x674627FF | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lxc-devel mailing list
> lxc-devel@lists.linuxcontainers.org
> http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel
>
--
Thanks,
//richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-16 7:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-14 21:34 [RFC PATCH 00/11] Add support for devtmpfs in user namespaces Seth Forshee
2014-05-14 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 01/11] driver core: Assign owning user namespace to devices Seth Forshee
2014-05-14 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 02/11] driver core: Add device_create_global() Seth Forshee
2014-05-14 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 03/11] tmpfs: Add sub-filesystem data pointer to shmem_sb_info Seth Forshee
2014-05-14 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 04/11] ramfs: Add sub-filesystem data pointer to ram_fs_info Seth Forshee
2014-05-14 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 05/11] devtmpfs: Add support for mounting in user namespaces Seth Forshee
2014-05-14 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 06/11] drivers/char/mem.c: Make null/zero/full/random/urandom available to " Seth Forshee
2014-05-14 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 07/11] block: Make partitions inherit namespace from whole disk device Seth Forshee
2014-05-14 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 08/11] block: Allow blkdev ioctls within user namespaces Seth Forshee
2014-05-14 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 09/11] misc: Make loop-control available to all " Seth Forshee
2014-05-14 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 10/11] loop: Assign devices to current_user_ns() Seth Forshee
2014-05-14 21:34 ` [RFC PATCH 11/11] loop: Allow priveleged operations for root in the namespace which owns a device Seth Forshee
2014-05-23 5:48 ` Marian Marinov
2014-05-26 9:16 ` Seth Forshee
2014-05-26 15:32 ` [lxc-devel] " Michael H. Warfield
2014-05-26 15:45 ` Seth Forshee
2014-05-27 1:36 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2014-05-27 2:39 ` Michael H. Warfield
2014-05-27 7:16 ` Seth Forshee
2014-05-27 13:16 ` Serge Hallyn
2014-05-15 1:32 ` [RFC PATCH 00/11] Add support for devtmpfs in user namespaces Greg Kroah-Hartman
2014-05-15 2:17 ` [lxc-devel] " Michael H. Warfield
2014-05-15 3:15 ` Seth Forshee
2014-05-15 4:00 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2014-05-15 13:42 ` Michael H. Warfield
2014-05-15 14:08 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2014-05-15 17:42 ` Serge Hallyn
2014-05-15 18:12 ` Seth Forshee
2014-05-15 22:15 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2014-05-16 1:42 ` Michael H. Warfield
2014-05-16 7:56 ` Richard Weinberger [this message]
2014-05-16 19:20 ` James Bottomley
2014-05-16 19:42 ` Michael H. Warfield
2014-05-16 19:52 ` [lxc-devel] Mount and other notifiers, was: " James Bottomley
2014-05-16 20:04 ` Michael H. Warfield
2014-05-16 1:49 ` [lxc-devel] " Serge Hallyn
2014-05-16 4:35 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2014-05-16 14:06 ` Seth Forshee
2014-05-16 15:28 ` Michael H. Warfield
2014-05-16 15:43 ` Seth Forshee
2014-05-16 18:57 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2014-05-16 19:28 ` James Bottomley
2014-05-16 20:18 ` Seth Forshee
2014-05-20 0:04 ` Eric W. Biederman
2014-05-20 1:14 ` Michael H. Warfield
2014-05-20 14:18 ` Serge Hallyn
2014-05-20 14:21 ` Seth Forshee
2014-05-21 22:00 ` Eric W. Biederman
2014-05-21 22:33 ` Serge Hallyn
2014-05-23 22:23 ` Eric W. Biederman
2014-05-28 9:26 ` Seth Forshee
2014-05-28 13:12 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2014-05-28 20:33 ` Eric W. Biederman
2014-05-18 2:42 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2014-05-17 4:31 ` Eric W. Biederman
2014-05-17 16:01 ` Seth Forshee
2014-05-18 2:44 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2014-05-19 13:27 ` Seth Forshee
2014-05-20 14:15 ` Serge Hallyn
2014-05-20 14:26 ` Serge Hallyn
2014-05-17 12:57 ` Michael H. Warfield
2014-05-15 18:25 ` Richard Weinberger
2014-05-15 19:50 ` Serge Hallyn
2014-05-15 20:13 ` Richard Weinberger
2014-05-15 20:26 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2014-05-15 20:33 ` Richard Weinberger
2014-05-19 20:22 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-05-20 14:19 ` Serge Hallyn
2014-05-23 8:20 ` Marian Marinov
2014-05-23 13:16 ` James Bottomley
2014-05-23 16:39 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-05-24 22:25 ` Serge Hallyn
2014-05-25 8:12 ` James Bottomley
2014-05-25 22:24 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2014-05-28 7:02 ` James Bottomley
2014-05-28 13:49 ` Serge Hallyn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAFLxGvwy7A6yFBW4vNqsD5T4ghAwDqMqRmKP3a4YEOPFqeARDg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=richard.weinberger@gmail.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lxc-devel@lists.linuxcontainers.org \
--cc=serge.hallyn@canonical.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).