Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 06 Jan 2004 14:48:36 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: name spaces good |
| |
Dax Kelson wrote: > On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 15:06, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >>First of all, I'll be blunt: namespaces currently provide zero benefit >>in Linux, and virtually noone uses them. > > > I strongly disagree. > > I find them very useful, and there are lots of problems that are not > cleanly solved any other way. In particular they are very useful in > security hardening, compartmentalization scenarios. >
Excellent... if so it would be useful to have a discussion about the proper semantics for these scenarios. So far the consensus opinion among most of the VFS people seems to have been "when you clone a namespace you get an unanimated namespace"; it would be useful ito know if that applies to your scenario, assuming it matters, and if so why/why not.
Al Viro has been working on a key piece of infrastructure for doing autofs right called mount traps. This is the main reason -- even more so than the lack of time on my part -- that not much work has been done on the new version of autofs. mount traps, combined with "pseudo-symlinks" (non-S_IFLNK nodes which have follow_link methods), do most of the tasks that have been proven necessary in the kernel.
The consensus I have seen seems to be that namespaces is mostly used, as you said, for compartmentalizing and security, you pretty much have two scenarios as far as I can see it:
a) You're running autofs "outside" the compartmentalization, in a global namespace. b) You're running autofs "inside" the compartmentalization, then you don't want access to anything on the outside. You thus run the autofs "inside" and can't access anything else.
-hpa
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |