On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 02:58:09PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: >> On 23.01.2015 04:53, Dave Chinner wrote: >> >On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 06:28:51PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: >> >>>+ kprojid = make_kprojid(&init_user_ns, (projid_t)projid); >> >> >> >>Maybe current_user_ns()? >> >>This code should be user-namespace aware from the beginning. >> > >> >No, the code is correct. Project quotas have nothing to do with >> >UIDs and so should never have been included in the uid/gid >> >namespace mapping infrastructure in the first place. >> >> Right, but user-namespace provides id mapping for project-id too. >> This infrastructure adds support for nested project quotas with >> virtualized ids in sub-containers. I couldn't say that this is >> must have feature but implementation is trivial because whole >> infrastructure is already here. > > This is an extremely common misunderstanding of project IDs. Project > IDs are completely separate to the UID/GID namespace. Project > quotas were originally designed specifically for > accounting/enforcing quotas in situations where uid/gid > accounting/enforcing is not possible. This design intent goes back > 25 years - it predates XFS... > > IOWs, mapping prids via user namespaces defeats the purpose > for which prids were originally intended for. > >> >Point in case: directory subtree quotas can be used as a resource >> >controller for limiting space usage within separate containers that >> >share the same underlying (large) filesystem via mount namespaces. >> >> That's exactly my use-case: 'sub-volumes' for containers with >> quota for space usage/inodes count. > > That doesn't require mapped project IDs. Hard container space limits > can only be controlled by the init namespace, and because inodes can > hold only one project ID the current ns cannot be allowed to change > the project ID on the inode because that allows them to escape the > resource limits set on the project ID associated with the sub-mount > set up by the init namespace... > > i.e. > > /mnt prid = 0, default for entire fs. > /mnt/container1/ prid = 1, inherit, 10GB space limit > /mnt/container2/ prid = 2, inherit, 50GB space limit > ..... > /mnt/containerN/ prid = N, inherit, 20GB space limit > > And you clone the mount namespace for each container so the root is > at the appropriate /mnt/containerX/. Now the containers have a > fixed amount of space they can use in the parent filesystem they > know nothing about, and it is enforced by directory subquotas > controlled by the init namespace. This "fixed amount of space" is > reflected in the container namespace when "df" is run as it will > report the project quota space limits. Adding or removing space to a > container is as simple as changing the project quota limits from the > init namespace. i.e. an admin operation controlled by the host, not > the container.... > > Allowing the container to modify the prid and/or the inherit bit of > inodes in it's namespace then means the user can define their own > space usage limits, even turn them off. It's not a resource > container at that point because the user can define their own > limits. Hence, only if the current_ns cannot change project quotas > will we have a hard fence on space usage that the container *cannot > exceed*. I think I must be missing something simple here. In a hypothetical world where the code used nsown_capable, if an admin wants to stick a container in /mnt/container1 with associated prid 1 and a userns, shouldn't it just map only prid 1 into the user ns? Then a user in that userns can't try to change the prid of a file to 2 because the number "2" is unmapped for that user and translation will fail. --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
