"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 05:45:40AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> The solution is to use user namespaces and to only test ns_capable on >the magic reboot path. >> >> For the 3.7 timeframe that should be a realistic solution. > >Hmm, that would imply that if LXC wants to allow reboot()/CAP_SYS_BOOT >they will be forced to use CLONE_NEWUSER. I was rather looking for a >way >to allow the container to keep CAP_SYS_BOOT, without also mandating use >of user namespaces. If we remove the use of CAP_SYS_BOOT on the container reboot path perhaps. But you have hit one small issue in the huge pile of issues why giving contaners capabilities is generally a bad idea. This is the reason I have been insisting on a reasonable version of user namespaces for a long time. When the security issues become important it is time for user namespaces. That is their purpose. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
