On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun 12-04-15 17:36:53, Alban Crequy wrote: >> On 9 April 2015 at 17:14, Li Xi <pkuelelixi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > The following patches propose an implementation of project quota >> > support for ext4. A project is an aggregate of unrelated inodes >> > which might scatter in different directories. Inodes that belong >> > to the same project possess an identical identification i.e. >> > 'project ID', just like every inode has its user/group >> > identification. The following patches add project quota as >> > supplement to the former uer/group quota types. >> > (...) >> >> Thanks for this work, I would like to use this for containers. I am >> adding containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in Cc. >> >> To make sure I understand correctly, I will describe the configuration >> I have in mind and hopefully someone can tell me if it makes sense. >> >> Containers created by rkt (https://github.com/coreos/rkt) use an >> overlay filesystem as root and the lowerdir/upperdir directories are >> based on an ext4 filesystem outside of the container's reach. The >> lowerdir is the base image, and several container instances can >> potentially use the same lowerdir. Each container has its upperdir >> containing their changes. >> >> With your patch set, I could assign a different projid to the upperdir >> of each container with a specific quota. Then it will limit how much >> the container will be able to write. I don't know if the overlay's >> workdir would need to have projid too. > I don't think overlay's workdir needs project id. Limits will be simply > checked when storing data into upperdir by overlayfs. Overlayfs will get > EDQUOT which it will report back into the user. Noted, thanks. >> When a quota warning is sent on netlink, it is received only in the >> initial user namespace and the processes in a different user namespace >> will not be able to receive the netlink warnings. The user will only >> receive a warning through the control terminal. > So I don't know much about namespaces but I don't see how quota netlink > messages would be connected with *user* namespaces. But you are right that > quota netlink messages will contain ID of the violator mapped into init > user namespace so it won't make sense to processes in other user namespaces > even if they were able to receive it. > >> Since rkt does not use user namespaces yet, a rkt container could >> unfortunately receive quota warnings through netlink concerning the >> host or other containers. Or is it restricted to init_net? > Quota netlink messages are sent only in init_net namespace (since quota > netlink protocol wasn't made namespace aware). So this shouldn't be an > issue. You're right, I misread it, it references the init network namespace and not the user namespace: fs/quota/netlink.c:quota_send_warning() uses genlmsg_multicast() which specifically references init_net: return genlmsg_multicast_netns(family, &init_net, skb, portid, group, flags); >> quotactl() can be used in a rkt container if the proccesses in the >> container can guess somehow which block device is used by the >> filesystem hosting the overlay's upperdir and if they can mknod it >> somewhere. Usually, containers don't restrict mknod but just restrict >> read-write access through the device cgroup. The read-write access is >> irrelevant for quotactl(): quotactl() just check that the device node >> exists and that it is not on a nodev mount. The nodev check does not >> restrict containers here because they usually have a /dev mounted as >> tmpfs without the nodev option. > Correct. This raises a somewhat unrelated question: Does this mean that a > container is able to mount arbitrary block device? Because also there we > just pass a device path to the kernel... The process would still need CAP_SYS_ADMIN and there are additional checks when the user namespace is not the initial user namespace: fs/namespace.c do_new_mount() if (user_ns != &init_user_ns) { if (!(type->fs_flags & FS_USERNS_MOUNT)) { put_filesystem(type); return -EPERM; }... For example, FS_USERNS_MOUNT is set on devpts_fs_type but not on ext4_fs_type. So it's not possible to mount ext4 in a different user namespace. Containers that don't use user namespaces can avoid giving CAP_SYS_ADMIN or restrict mount with some AppArmor rules. >> Containers that don't use user namespaces (so no projid mapping) would >> be able to query quotas for projid assigned to other containers >> (unfortunately). They would be able to change the quota of other >> containers if they are privileged enough to be given CAP_SYS_RESOURCE. > Yes. > >> Containers using user namespaces would not be able to change any quota >> config because they don't have CAP_SYS_RESOURCE in the init user >> namespace. If they are configured with a proper projid mapping, they >> would only be able to query the projid they are assigned (they could >> guess which projid to query by looking at /proc/self/projid_map). > Yes. > >> Do you know if someone is working on the documentation? It would be >> nice if filesystems/quota.txt could say who can receive the quota >> warnings on netlink (which namespace) and if it could give some > I have added that. > >> information about projid. But maybe this belong to the proc(5) and >> user_namespaces(7) manpages as well. > Project ID in VFS quotas is fairly new thing. Once ext4 gains support for > it, I can add some documentation. > >> Is there any suggestions how to allocate projid in userspace? >> Something like /etc/subprojid similar to /etc/subuid? > I guess you need some coordination between namespaces? Yes, I was thinking if Docker uses projid for some containers, rkt uses other projid for other containers and the sysadmin also define some projid manually. > I only know that > traditionally xfsprogs use /etc/projid for name->project id translation > and /etc/projects contain roots of directory trees for which you wish to > maintain directory quota together with project ids for each of the trees. Thanks for the pointer. Alban > > Honza > -- > Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > SUSE Labs, CR > _______________________________________________ > Containers mailing list > Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers -- 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
