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
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers


[Index of Archives]     [Cgroups]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux