[lxc-devel] device namespaces

[Serge Hallyn]

Isolation is provided by the devices cgroup.  You want something more
than isolation.

Quoting riya khanna (riyakhanna1983 at gmail.com):
> My use case for having device namespaces is device isolation. Isn't what
> namespaces are there for (as I understand)? Not everything should be
> accessible (or even visible) from a container all the time (we have seen
> people come up with different use cases for this). However, bind-mounting
> takes away this flexibility. I agree that assigning fixed device numbers is
> clearly not a long-term solution. Emulation for safe and flexible
> multiplexing, like you suggested either using CUSE/FUSE or something like
> devpts, is what I'm exploring.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm at xmission.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > riya khanna <riyakhanna1983 at gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > (Please pardon multiple emails, artifact of merging all separate
> > conversations)
> > >
> > > Thanks for your feedback!
> > >
> > > Letting the kernel know about what devices a container could access
> > (based on
> > > device cgroups) and having devtmpfs in the kernel create device nodes
> > for a
> > > container that map to corresponding CUSE nodes is what I thought of. For
> > > example, "echo 29:0 > /proc/<pid>/devices" would prepare a virtual
> > framebuffer
> > > (based on real fb0 SCREENINFO properties) for this process provided
> > permissions
> > > allow this operation. To view the framebuffer, the CUSE based virtual
> > device
> > > would talk to the actual hardware. Since namespaces would have different
> > view of
> > > the underlying devices, "sysfs" has to made aware of this as well.
> > >
> > > Please let me know your inputs. Thanks again!
> >
> > The solution hugely depends on what you are trying to do with it.
> >
> > The situation today is that device nodes are slowly fading out.  In
> > another 20 years linux may not have any device nodes at all.
> >
> > Therefore the question becomes what are you trying to support.
> >
> > If it is just filtering of existing device nodes.  We can do a pretty
> > good approximation with bind mounts.
> >
> > If you want to emulate a device you can use normal fuse (not cuse).
> > As normal fuse file will support arbitrary ioctls.
> >
> > There are a few cases where it is desirable to emulate what devpts
> > does for allowing arbitrary users to creating virtual devices in the
> > kernel.  Loop devices in particular.
> >
> > Ultimately given the existence of device hotplug I don't see any call
> > for being able to create device nodes with well known device numbers
> > (fundamentally what a device namespace would be about).
> >
> > The conversation last year was about people wanting to multiplex devices
> > that don't have multiplexer support in the kernel.  If that is your
> > desire I think it is entirely reasonable to device type by device type
> > add support for multiplexing that device type to the kernel, or
> > potentially just use fuse or cuse to implement your multiplexer in
> > userspace but that has the potential to be unusably slow.
> >
> > Eric
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> >