Re: Why does devices cgroup check for CAP_SYS_ADMIN explicitly?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello, Serge.

On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 09:01:32AM -0600, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> More practically, lacking user namespaces you can create a full (i.e.
> ubuntu) container that doesn't have CAP_SYS_ADMIN, but not one without
> root.  So this allows you to prevent containers from bypassing devices
> cgroup restrictions set by the parent.  (In reality we are not using
> that in ubuntu - we grant CAP_SYS_ADMIN and use apparmor to restrict -
> but other distros do.)

Do you even mount cgroupfs in containers?  If you just bind-mount
cgroupfs verbatim in containers, I don't think that's gonna work very
well.  If not, all this doesn't make any difference for containers.

So, you don't really have any actual use case for the explicit CAP_*
checks, right?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux