[lkml]   [2005]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: what's next for the linux kernel?
    On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, David Leimbach wrote:

    [snip quotes]

    > It would if the rest of the system really enforced this "privacy". In
    > plan 9 /tmp is really a bind to /usr/$user/tmp. And if you launch
    > something like "ramfs" [a userland 9P server] it binds a ram disk
    > device over /tmp by default unless you tell it otherwise, then you
    > have a ram-backed directory only for the current process and its
    > children in /tmp.

    > This is useful for pulling things out of the
    > encrypted storage like factotum keys [sort of like a keyring for all
    > factotum based authentication including 9P mounts and even ssh
    > connections that use no ssh-keys]. When your process goes away so
    > does the decrypted keyfile, pretty nice.

    You'd usurally just create+open a file and erase it without closing it.
    The only access to this file is by using the file descriptor (or, off
    cause, /proc/pid/fd/num). If the last reference to this file, the running
    process, is gone, so is the file.

    > Back on topic...
    > The problem with private namespaces on Linux is that they really
    > aren't so much. mount will update /etc/mtab for all to see and even

    Userspace problem.-)

    > /proc/<pid>/mounts is world readable [though it doesn't give useful
    > bind information anyway on linux... just the disk device it appears].

    There was some proc privacy patch some time ago. It was argued about
    because some sites want peer review on system usage. I lost track
    if it was included.

    > I think private namespaces could actually be made more-so but the rest
    > of the system has to cooperate and I doubt that I have the energy to
    > do the evangelism and requisite proofs of concept for Linux. It's far
    > easier for me to just use Plan 9 and Inferno instead of trying to
    > assimilate Linux, even though I think I'd prefer Linux if it were more
    > like the former two.

    The plan is:

    1) make namespaces joinable
    2) ???
    3) profit

    No, that's wrong. The plan is (should be?):

    1) make namespaces joinable in a sane way
    2) wait for the shared subtree patch
    3) make pam join the per-user-namespace
    4) make pam automount tmpfs on the private /tmp

    Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say:
    44. System coming down in 0 min....
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-10-05 18:28    [W:0.054 / U:68.796 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site