Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <054c1e762d28306abd4db9c42fb1c5f4261332fd.camel@themaw.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/27] containers: Implement containers as kernel
 objects
From:   Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
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:   Wed, 20 Feb 2019 11:04:01 +0800
In-Reply-To: <1550629220.11684.3.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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 <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> 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.

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