Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([email protected]):
> > > Thinking a bit more about this, I'm quite sure most users wouldn't
> > > even want private namespaces. It would be enough to
> > >
> > > chroot /share/$USER
> > >
> > > and be done with it.
> > >
> > > Private namespaces are only good for keeping a bunch of mounts
> > > referenced by a group of processes. But my guess is, that the natural
> > > behavior for users is to see a persistent set of mounts.
> > >
> > > If for example they mount something on a remote machine, then log out
> > > from the ssh session and later log back in, they would want to see
> > > their previous mount still there.
> > >
> > > Miklos
> >
> > Agreed on desired behavior, but not on chroot sufficing. It actually
> > sounds like you want exactly what was outlined in the OLS paper.
> >
> > Users still need to be in a different mounts namespace from the admin
> > user so long as we consider the deluser and backup problems
>
> I don't think it matters, because /share/$USER duplicates a part or
> the whole of the user's namespace.
>
> So backup would have to be taught about /share anyway, and deluser
> operates on /home/$USER and not on /share/*, so there shouldn't be any
> problem.
In what I was thinking of, /share/$USER is bind mounted to
~$USER/share, so it would have to be done in a private namespace in
order for deluser to not be tricked.
> There's actually very little difference between rbind+chroot, and
> CLONE_NEWNS. In a private namespace:
>
> 1) when no more processes reference the namespace, the tree will be
> disbanded
>
> 2) the mount tree won't be accessible from outside the namespace
But it *can* be, if properly set up. That's part of the point of the
example in the OLS paper. When a user logs in, sshd clones a new
namespace, then bind-mounts /share/$USER into ~$USER/share. So assuming
that /share/$USER was --make-shared'd, it and ~$USER are now in the
same peer group, and any changes made by the user under ~$USER will
be reflected back into /share/$USER.
> Wanting a persistent namespace contradicts 1).
Not necessarily, see above.
> Wanting a per-user (as opposed to per-session) namespace contradicts
> 2). The namespace _has_ to be accessible from outside, so that a new
> session can access/copy it.
Again, I *think* you are wrong that private namespace contradicts this
requirement.
> So both requirements point to the rbind/chroot solution.
It all points to a combination of the two :-)
-serge
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
