Quoting Tejun Heo (tj@xxxxxxxxxx): > Hello, Serge. > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 01:46:39PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > It's not a leak of any information we're trying to hide. I realize > > something like 8 years have passed, but I still basically go by the > > ksummit guidance that containers are ok but the kernel's first priority > > is to facilitate containers but not trick containers into thinking > > they're not containerized. So long as the container is properly set > > up, I don't think there's anything the workload could do with the > > nsroot= info other than *know* that it is in a ns cgroup. > > > > If we did change that guidance, there's a slew of proc info that we > > could better virtualize :) > > I see. I'm just wondering because the information here seems a bit > gratuituous. Isn't the only thing necessary telling whether the root > is bind mounted or namescoped? Wouldn't simple "nsroot" work for that > purpose? I don't think so - we could be in a cgroup namespace but still have access only to bind-mounted cgroups. So we need to compare the superblock dentry root field to the nsroot= value. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
