On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 02:58:18PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 08:22:38AM -0600, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > But it still requires the admin set it up that way, no? And aren't > > privileges required to set up those devices in the first place? > > > > I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a good idea to lock down the backing > > stores for those types of devices too, just that it isn't something that > > a regular user could exploit without an admin doing something to > > facilitate it. > > Sigh... If it boils down to "all admins within all containers must be > trusted not to try and break out" (along with "roothole in any container > escalates to kernel-mode code execution on host"), then what the fuck > is the *point* of bothering with containers, userns, etc. in the first > place? If your model is basically "you want isolation, just use kvm", > fine, but where's the place for userns in all that? > > And if you are talking about the _host_ admin, then WTF not have him just > mount what's needed as part of setup and to hell with mounting those > inside the container? Yes, the host admin. I'm not talking about trusting the admin inside the container at all. >From my perspective the idea is essentially to allow mounting with fuse or with ext4 using "mount -o loop ..." within a container. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
