[Lxc-users] [lxc-devel] mount ro in guest change host filesystem to ro

axel.schoener at gmx.de axel.schoener at gmx.de
Sun Sep 4 19:53:39 UTC 2011


Hi,

in my opinion it's never a bad idea to drop the sys_admin cap. except you 
really need it. I' ve searched for some help because i'm using ubuntu only for 
some study (normally gentoo).
I found a little help here: http://qemu-buch.de/de/index.php/QEMU-KVM-
Buch/_Anhang/_Weitere_Virtualisierer_und_Emulatoren/_LXC#Die_LXC-
Konfigurationsdatei .

My guest is using these settings:
lxc.cap.drop = sys_module mknod sys_admin


My fstab for a ubuntu host look like this:
# cat /var/lib/lxc/guest.temp01/fstab

proc    /var/lib/lxc/guest.temp01/rootfs/proc                           proc    
nodev,noexec,nosuid                     0 0
sysfs   /var/lib/lxc/guest.temp01/rootfs/sys                            sysfs 
defaults                                  0 0

none    /var/lib/lxc/guest.temp01/rootfs/dev/shm                        tmpfs 
mode=0644                                 0 0
none    /var/lib/lxc/guest.temp01/rootfs/dev/pts                        devpts 
defaults                                 0 0
none    /var/lib/lxc/guest.temp01/rootfs/var/run                        tmpfs 
defaults                                  0 0

none    /var/lib/lxc/guest.temp01/rootfs/sys/fs/fuse/connections        
fusectl         optional                        0 0
none    /var/lib/lxc/guest.temp01/rootfs/sys/kernel/debug               
debugfs         optional                        0 0
none    /var/lib/lxc/guest.temp01/rootfs/sys/kernel/security            
securityfs      optional                        0 0


Inside the container the lib/init/fstab has to be modified like this:
# /lib/init/fstab: static file system information.
#
# These are the filesystems that are always mounted on boot, you can
# override any of these by copying the appropriate line from this file into
# /etc/fstab and tweaking it as you see fit.  See fstab(5).
#
# <file system> <mount point>             <type>          <options>                    
<dump> <pass>
/dev/root       /                         rootfs          defaults                          
0 1
#none            /proc                     proc            nodev,noexec,nosuid               
0 0
none            /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc  binfmt_misc     
nodev,noexec,nosuid,optional      0 0
none            /sys                      sysfs           nodev,noexec,nosuid               
0 0
#none            /sys/fs/fuse/connections  fusectl         optional                          
0 0
#none            /sys/kernel/debug         debugfs         optional                          
0 0
#none            /sys/kernel/security      securityfs      optional                          
0 0
none            /spu                      spufs           gid=spu,optional                  
0 0
#none            /dev                      devtmpfs,tmpfs  mode=0755                         
0 0
#none            /dev/pts                  devpts          
noexec,nosuid,gid=tty,mode=0620   0 0
none            /dev/shm                  tmpfs           nosuid,nodev                      
0 0
none            /tmp                      none            defaults                          
0 0
none            /var/run                  tmpfs           
mode=0755,nosuid,showthrough      0 0
#none            /var/lock                 tmpfs           
nodev,noexec,nosuid,showthrough   0 0
none            /lib/init/rw              tmpfs           
mode=0755,nosuid,optional         0 0


Regards, Axel Schöner



On Friday, 2. September 2011 11:51:55 Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 08:35 +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> > On 02.09.2011 00:46, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > On 09/01/2011 09:30 PM, Nico wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >> 
> > >> I just wanted to give it a try again with lxc after one year,
> > >> this is so bad same bugs are always here :
> > >> 
> > >> * you can do a "mount -o romount,ro /" inside container (reported
> > >> since first times ... :( ),
> > >> and host filesystem is remounted ro !!
> > > 
> > > Argh ! I still don't understand how that can happen with a
> > > CLONE_NEWNS
> > > and a pivot_root.
> > > Do you have particular mount options on your host's rootfs ?
> > 
> > In order for guest remount to NOT influence host mount, you have to
> > give -o bind option to mount inside guest.  If you don't specify
> > MS_BIND with MS_REMOUNT, the remount applies to _host_ mountpoint,
> > not guest.
> 
> Last time I recall playing with this was a couple of months ago and was
> not the rootfs that was causing me headaches with random acts of
> terrorism but the devpts file system mounted on /dev/pts.  When a
> container would to a remount ro (the evil deed in the "halt" script that
> was causing the problems) it would make ALL of the devpts mounts in the
> host and in all of the other containers ro, and you were screwed till
> you remounted it rw once again.  At the time, we played with things like
> SLAVE, SHARED, and PRIVATE mounting with bind mounts and I had it
> (mostly?) working for real file systems, like additional mounts, but
> never did get it working for the pseudo file systems like devpts.
> 
> Now, you're saying, what we need to do is do a bind mount in the
> container after the clone?  So lxc has to do this for every mount (not
> just /) after cloning the container and before firing up init?  Do I
> have that right?
> 
> I then see a potential problem right there (even assuming that works for
> devpts - which I really hope it would).  What if someone in the
> container mounts a new instantiation of devpts and then remounts it as
> ro?  Will that propagate or no?
> 
> Blocking all mounts is not acceptable as there are too many things where
> a container might want to do a mount on say iso images or something
> similar.  Certainly the case if you are using this for development
> systems (I work on the Network Security Toolkit run live iso from time
> to time for instance).
> 
> Serge said something about needed to set up a test environment to
> reproduce it but that was the last I heard from him on the subject back
> then.  I wasn't sure if he was implying that it wasn't happening on an
> Ubuntu host (I'm using Fedora) or what exactly.
> 
> > This has been discussed several times on irc.
> 
> Would have been nice if it had been echoed on the E-Mail channel.  I
> don't look in on irc that often and E-Mail threads are better preserved,
> specially when you've been disconnected for a while.  :-/
> 
> > /mjt
> 
> Regards,
> Mike




More information about the lxc-users mailing list