[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:16:49 +0200
From: Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com>
To: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, kirill@...temov.name,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Dongsu Park <dpark@...teo.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] proc: support multiple separate proc instances
per pidnamespace
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 05:22:55PM +0200, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This RFC can be applied on top of Linus' tree 89970a04d7
>
> This RFC implements support for multiple separate proc instances inside
> the same pid namespace. This allows to solve lot of problems that
> today's use case face.
>
> Historically procfs was tied to pid namespaces, and mount options were
> propagated to all other procfs instances in the same pid namespace. This
> solved several use cases in that time. However today we face new
> problems, there are mutliple container implementations there, some of
> them want to hide pid entries, others want to hide non-pid entries,
> others want to have sysctlfs, others want to share pid namespace with
> private procfs mounts. All these with current implementation won't work
> since all options will be propagated to all procfs mounts.
>
> This series allow to have new instances of procfs per pid namespace where
> each instance can have its own mount option inside the same pid namespace.
> This was also suggested by Andy Lutomirski.
>
>
> Now:
> $ sudo mount -t proc -o unshare,hidepid=2 none /test
>
> The option 'unshare' will allow to mount a new instance of procfs inside
> the same pid namespace.
>
> Before:
> $ stat /proc/slabinfo
>
> File: ‘/proc/slabinfo’
> Size: 0 Blocks: 0 IO Block: 1024 regular empty file
> Device: 4h/4d Inode: 4026532046 Links: 1
>
> $ stat /test3/slabinfo
>
> File: ‘/test3/slabinfo’
> Size: 0 Blocks: 0 IO Block: 1024 regular empty file
> Device: 4h/4d Inode: 4026532046 Links: 1
>
>
> After:
> $ stat /proc/slabinfo
>
> File: ‘/proc/slabinfo’
> Size: 0 Blocks: 0 IO Block: 1024 regular empty file
> Device: 4h/4d Inode: 4026532046 Links: 1
>
> $ stat /test3/slabinfo
>
> File: ‘/test3/slabinfo’
> Size: 0 Blocks: 0 IO Block: 1024 regular empty file
> Device: 31h/49d Inode: 4026532046 Links: 1
>
>
> Any better name for the option 'unshare' ? suggestions ?
>
> I was going to use 'version=2' but then this may sound more like a
> proc2 fs which currently impossible to implement since it will share
> locks with the old proc.
>
>
> Al, Eric any comments please ?
Multiple mnt_root's lead us to significant memory costs for storing dentry
of tasks. I mean what we will get as many copies of the tasks dentry as many
times we have mounted the procfs with 'unshare' flag. No?
--
Rgrds, legion
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
