Re: [RFC 1/1] shiftfs: uid/gid shifting bind mount
From: Djalal Harouni
Date: Tue Feb 07 2017 - 04:39:58 EST
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 11:19:32AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
>> This allows any subtree to be uid/gid shifted and bound elsewhere. It
>> does this by operating simlarly to overlayfs. Its primary use is for
>> shifting the underlying uids of filesystems used to support
>> unpriviliged (uid shifted) containers. The usual use case here is
>> that the container is operating with an uid shifted unprivileged root
>> but sometimes needs to make use of or work with a filesystem image
>> that has root at real uid 0.
>>
>> The mechanism is to allow any subordinate mount namespace to mount a
>> shiftfs filesystem (by marking it FS_USERNS_MOUNT) but only allowing
>> it to mount marked subtrees (using the -o mark option as root). Once
>> mounted, the subtree is mapped via the super block user namespace so
>> that the interior ids of the mounting user namespace are the ids
>> written to the filesystem.
>
> Please move this into VFS instead of a stackable fs. We might need
> addtional parameters to getattr/setattr to specify the ID translation,
> but that's why better than a horrible hack like this.
I proposed an RFC months ago which implements all of this at the VFS
layer [1], I received some feedback especially from Dave Chinner,
however I failed to fix my bugs and improve it not enough resources...
The problems discussed here about a new filesystem: inodes numbers,
quota and many other things where all noted in that thread and
previous threads about shiftfs. We are turning this to a heavy problem
compared to all other namespaces... other namespaces integrate
perfectly with other subsystems and the rest of layers, there is no
special treatment...
Christoph, for the getattr/setattr it won't work since internally the
resolved path may point to a different mount context where we do not
want the ID translation, and we may end up using the wrong vfsmount. A
simple getattr/setattr won't work unless there are bigger changes
too...
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/4/411
--
tixxdz