Commit 26d592c
committed
config-linux: Specify relationships for new namespaces
These were contentious [1,2], so they weren't part of the previous
commit. I still think we want to say something about these
relationships.
We already have some of "runtime namespace" conditions (e.g. when a
type is not listed in linux.namespaces[]), so runtimes should already
have implementation-specific wording around what the runtime
namespaces are (we don't explicitly make them implementation-defined,
although we probably should). Anyhow, that's not a new concept added
by this commit.
# Seeded namespaces
For example, if you ask for a new uts namespace but do not set the
optional hostname, having the seed defined means that the hostname in
the container UTS namespace is well-defined (it will be whatever the
hostname was in the runtime UTS namespace).
This is less of an issue for the mount namespace, because with
root.path REQUIRED, there's no way to avoid clobbering whatever mounts
you got from your seed (which makes not asking for a new mount
namespace exciting ;).
# Hierarchical namespaces
I think "I want this container to run in a new user/pid namespace that
is a child of the runtime user/pid namespace" should be something that
has a portable config expression. Otherwise it becomes very unclear
what to put in the hostID field for (u|g)idMappings, because you don't
know what namespace will be used to interpret the hostIDs.
# Namespace ownership
This is another case where I think specified clarity is essential. A
new network namespace will not be very useful if you don't know who
owns it.
[1]: #767 (comment)
[2]: #767 (comment)
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>1 parent ae6288a commit 26d592c
1 file changed
Lines changed: 3 additions & 0 deletions
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
40 | 40 | | |
41 | 41 | | |
42 | 42 | | |
| 43 | + | |
| 44 | + | |
| 45 | + | |
43 | 46 | | |
44 | 47 | | |
45 | 48 | | |
| |||
0 commit comments