[Devel] Re: [PATCH 4/6] user namespaces: add user_ns to super block

Serge E. Hallyn serue at us.ibm.com
Tue Jul 29 11:05:15 PDT 2008

Quoting Matt Helsley (matthltc at us.ibm.com):
> On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 14:53 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue at us.ibm.com> writes:
> > 
> > >>From 420d6e81ce29d7a6fe3ab7b43c1171e105f8b697 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Serge Hallyn <serue at us.ibm.com>
> > > Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:00:54 -0500
> > > Subject: [PATCH 4/6] user namespaces: add user_ns to super block
> > >
> > > Add a user_ns to the super_block, and set it to the user_ns of
> > > the process which mounted the fs.
> > >
> > > In generic_permission() compare the current user_ns to that
> > > of the user_ns which mounted the inode's filesystem.
> > 
> > I don't think this is the right approach.
> > 
> > When we had the conversation earlier this was conceptually rejected
> > as it prevents nfs superblock unification.
> > 
> > We really want to store this in the vfsmount and pass the user namespace down
> > from there to where we are going to use it if at all possible.
> > 
> > The vfsmount also appears necessary if we are ever going to support multiple
> > user namespaces per filesystem as the filesystem still need to know which 
> > user namespace to interpret it's data in.

The filesystem can figure that out based on current's context, no?

With the per-sb user_ns, the default behavior is indeed very limited,
but since you want to move all the user_ns functionality into the
filesystem, the fs can tag vfsmounts based on the "new remount" you
had talked about before.

> 	Would this require passing the vfsmount to the filesystems themselves,
> or would they be within the VFS code only? If not wholly within the VFS
> I wonder if Al Viro would object to this. He's resisted past attempts to
> pass the vfsmount structs into more filesystem code paths and I'm
> guessing that could affect whether or not this approach can be
> implemented.

Right, that's the main reason we might want to pursue the per-sb
approach.  Otherwise I would prefer the per-vfsmount approach.

Eric, if you think the per-vfsmount fight is worth fighting, then by all
means let's do it and see what happens.  So in that case ignore patches
3-5 from this set :)

Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org

More information about the Devel mailing list