[Devel] Re: [Lxc-users] Kernel 2.6.33-rc6, 3 bugs container specific.
daniel.lezcano at free.fr
Thu Feb 4 01:33:21 PST 2010
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Daniel Lezcano (daniel.lezcano at free.fr):
>> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>>> Quoting Jean-Marc Pigeon (jmp at safe.ca):
>>>>> I was wondering out loud about the best design to solve his problem.
>>>>> If we try to redirect kernel-generated messages to containers, we have
>>>>> several problems, including whether we need to duplicate the messages
>>>>> to the host container. So in one sense it seems more flexible to
>>>>> 1. send everything to host syslog
>>>> No, if we do that all CONTs message will reach
>>>> the same bucket and it will be difficult to sort
>>>> them out..
>>>> CONT sys_admin and HOST sys_admin could be different
>>>> "entity", so you debug CONT config and critical
>>>> needed information reach HOST (which you do not have access
>>> Yes, so a privileged task on HOST must pass that information back to
>>> you on CONT. That is not a valid complaint imo. But how to sort the
>>> msgs out is a valid question.
>>> We need some sort of identifier, unique system-wide, attached to.. something.
>>> Is ifindex unique system-wide right now? Oh, IIRC it is, but we wnat it to
>>> be containerized, so that would be a bad choice :)
>>>>> 2. clamp down on syslog use by processes not in the init_user_ns
>>>> Could give me more detail??...
>>> Simplest choices would be to just refuse sys_syslog() and open(/proc/kmsg)
>>> altogether from a container, or to only allow reading/writing messages
>>> to own syslog. (I had hoped to find time to try out the second option but
>>> simply haven't had the time, and it doesn't look like I will very soon.
>>> So if anyone else wants to, pls jump at it...)
>>> Then /proc/kmsg can provide what I described above through a FUSE file,
>>> and if, as you mentioned, the container unmounts the FUSE fs and gets
>>> to real procfs, they just get nothing.
>>>>> 3. let the userspace on the host copy messages into a socket or
>>>>> file so child container can pretend it has real syslog.
>>>> So you trap printk message from CONT on the HOST and
>>>> redirect them on CONT but on a standard syslog channel.
>>>> Seem OK to me, as long /proc/kmsg is not existing
>>>> (/dev/null) in the CONT file tree.
>> We have:
>> * Commands to sys_syslog:
>> * 0 -- Close the log. Currently a NOP.
>> * 1 -- Open the log. Currently a NOP.
>> * 2 -- Read from the log.
>> * 3 -- Read all messages remaining in the ring buffer.
>> * 4 -- Read and clear all messages remaining in the ring buffer
>> * 5 -- Clear ring buffer.
>> * 6 -- Disable printk to console
>> * 7 -- Enable printk to console
>> * 8 -- Set level of messages printed to console
>> * 9 -- Return number of unread characters in the log buffer
>> * 10 -- Return size of the log buffer
>> And add:
>> * 11 -- create a new ring buffer for the current process
>> and its childs
>> We have, let's say a global ring buffer keep untouched, used by
>> syslog(2) and printk. When we create a new ring buffer, we allocate
>> it and assign to the nsproxy (global ring buffer is the default in
>> the nsproxy).
>> The prink keeps writing in the global ring buffer and the syslog(2)
>> writes to the "namespaced" ring buffer.
>> Does it makes sense ?
> Yeah, it's a nice alternative. Though (1) there is something to be said for
> forcing a new ring buffer upon clone(CLONE_NEWUSER), and (2) assuming the
> new ring buffer is pointed to from nsproxy, it might be frowned upon to do
> an unshare/clone action in yet another way.
Why do you want to tie clone(CLONE_NEWUSER) with a new ring buffer ?
I mean one may want to use CLONE_NEWUSER but keep the ring buffer, no ?
> I still think our first concern should be safety, and that we should consider
> just adding 'struct syslog_struct' to nsproxy, and making that NULL on a
> clone(CLONE_NEWUSER). any sys_syslog() or /proc/kmsg access returns -EINVAL
> after that. Then we can discuss whether and how to target printks to
> namespaces, and whether duplicates should be sent to parent namespaces.
That makes sense to do it step by step. Targeting the printk is the more
difficult, no ? I mean you should have always the destination namespace
available which is not obvious when the printk is called from an
> After we start getting flexible with syslog, the next request will be for
> audit flexibility. I don't even know how our netlink support suffices for
> that right now.
> (So, this all does turn into a big deal...)
Mmh ... right.
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
More information about the Devel