Ángel González <ingenit@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Eric W. Biederman writes: >> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>> Not sure if this is the right argument. From my point of view it's >>>> better to be explicit for such things, something like --all sounds >>>> like a magical blackbox where semantic depends on features implemented >>>> by kernel and nsenter(1). >> >> Which is the reason I did not implement --all in the first place, >> although it is attractive. >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm was trying to document how a user should enter a namespace >>> container created by systemd-nspawn. I would prefer not to have the >>> user type 'nsenter -t $PID -muipn', but something simpler. >> >> As I see it nsenter is the raw tool for when you need to get your >> hands dirty. lxc already has a more integrated version. And >> it isn't hard to define a simple wrapper such as: >> >> cat > systemd-nsenter <<EOF >> #!/bin/sh >> PID=$1 >> shift >> exec nsenter -t $PID --mount --ipc --pid --net --uts "$@" >> EOF >> >> If you need things to be slightly simpler and it isn't worth deriving >> your own c wrapper. > > Except that when you are distributing such script (eg. an init-like > script), your shell script will need to add code detecting which > namespaces the kernel supports (and adding appropiate flags to nsenter) > and checking if your nsenter version supports them or not. Then what you want is --ignore-namespaces-if-not-supported-in-kernel. That is a somewhat different problem than --all. The --all patch attempts to do something like that and I suspect in the corner case where the we have namespace files for that namespace but no setns support in the kernel the logic in the --all patch will work. However usually the failure will be you can't open /proc/$pid/ns/$file, which was not handled. > It's better to have --all to enter all namespaces that nsenter supports. > If you want to, it could print a warning when using --all and nsenter > knows about more namespaces than the kernel or if it detects that the > kernel knows about more namespaces than itself. > But having a --all to enter “as namespaces as possible” would be the > right thing IMHO. The argument for --all and this is an argument that only applies to nsenter and not unshare is that usually things are more likely to do what you expect if you share more namespaces with them. The counter argument is that sharing fewer namespaces than expected can easily invalidate your testing and introduce subtle bugs. "nsenter -t $pid --all" is what I want most days, but I can't convince myself that "nsenter -t $pid -muinpUrw" is worse (just a few more characters) and it has the advantage that what has worked before should work again. Right now --all looks like a subtle trap waiting for users. Even --ignore-namespaces-if-not-supported-in-kernel looks like that to a degree. With nsenter if we don't ignore failures when something we need is missing the failure is up there and in your face. If we do ignore failures we can easily run into cases where commands that we run continue to work but on the wrong namespaces, causing all kinds of things to fail. Think about using: "nsneter -t $pid -p /bin/kill -KILL -1" to ask a container to shutdown. If we were to ignore the fact you can't enter the pid namespace than the command would kill everything and the box would go down. That seems very scary. So I don't like removing namespaces silently. Having an --all that could mean everything nsenter supports this week is better but you start getting shell scripts that work fine on new distros but fail in horrible ways on old distro's with old versions of nsenter. That certainly is better but still a bit of a scary prospect. Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
