Denis V. Lunev wrote: > On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 15:46 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> Denis V. Lunev wrote: >>> On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:31 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>> Pavel Emelyanov wrote: >>>>>> So there are 2 cases: >>>>>> * full isolation : restriction on VPS >>>>>> * partial isolation : no restriction but *perhaps* problem when migrating >>>>>> >>>>>> Looks like we need an option per namespace to reduce the isolation for >>>>>> af_unix sockets :) >>>>>> - on (default): current behaviour => full isolation >>>>>> - off : partial isolation >>>>> You mean some sysctl, that enables/disables this check in unix_find_socket_byinode? >>>> Yes. >>> I do not see much sense with sysctl as: >>> - check (cross-connected sockets) is required as we can start namespace >>> with already opened socket >> Check when checkpointing ? If you inherit a socket from your parent >> namespace, this socket belongs to your parent and you should not >> checkpoint it, no ? >> >> In case you allow cross-connected sockets, this check is mandatory I agree. >> >>> - this kind of sharing is not implicit but explicit as normal isolated >>> containers _must_ have separate filesystems. In this case this >>> sharing requires explicit host administrator action to link socket >>> between containers >> What are "normal isolated containers" ? Are they OpenVZ containers ? >> These containers belong to the system containers family. What happens >> with application containers, if I want to share the filesystem without >> breaking the isolation of the afunix sockets ? > > then you are doomed as you will have a FIFO opened from 2 namespaces and > checking the absences of external references is still mandatory >> The current code provides full isolation and this is in mainline. I >> don't think it is reasonable to change that. What I propose is to keep >> the current behaviour. >> >> When you create a network namespace, you can change the behaviour inside >> this namespace via /proc/sys/net/unix/isolated (for example). >> >> This option allows: >> 1 - to connect to af_unix not belonging to the container >> 2 - to accept af_unix connection from outside the container (avoid a >> container to forbid the checkpoint of another container); > > this should be at least per/namespace option controlled from parent > container from my POW Yes per namespace, I agree. If the option is controlled by the parent and it is done by sysctl, you will have to make proc/sys per namespace like Pavel did with /proc/net, no ? _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers