Re: [lxc-devel] Device Namespaces

2013-10-28 Thread Michael J Coss
bad it will be. Ultimately, I'd really rather have a containerized sysfs and devtmpfs, but I suspect that there's going to be a lot of push back on doing that in the kernel. -- ---Michael J Coss -- Android i

Re: [lxc-devel] Device Namespaces

2013-10-01 Thread Michael J Coss
within a given namespace. A user space daemon can filter events and forward them to the appropriate containers. You still have fix the /dev in the container, and I put a local dev directory in /etc/lxc/ and bind mount to allow my systemd container to actually run udev, and have a custo

Re: [lxc-devel] Device Namespaces

2013-09-26 Thread Michael J Coss
eadonly, but a unified policy would be nice. My kernel patch is just to facility the communication to the container of the appropriate uevents, and the daemon uses libudev to collect, apply policy, and forward the appropriate events. And I'm working on a

Re: [lxc-devel] RFC: Device Namespaces

2013-09-25 Thread Michael J Coss
running in a separate network namespace, but that's about it. Of course, that still leaves you with sysfs needing similar treatment. ---Michael J Coss -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars

Re: [lxc-devel] RFC: Device Namespaces

2013-08-26 Thread Michael J Coss
something similar, and will look over your patch set. Although, one use case that I want is kind of the reverse of what you're doing; to run an Android container on a Linux host, as well as just provide device protection to the host from containers. -- ---Michael J Coss --

Re: [lxc-devel] Dynamic devices

2013-03-19 Thread Michael J Coss
at a hotplug script running on the host could do something like you describe. I would have to disable the propagation of the uevent to the container, or simply remove the capability of doing mknod from the container completely. I'm still trying to figure out why the udev runni

Re: [lxc-devel] Dynamic devices

2013-03-13 Thread Michael J Coss
tainer configuration determines what uevents should/can be processed by that container. Or should it be handled elsewhere? Michael J Coss On 3/12/2013 1:04 PM, lxc-devel-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net wrote: > Send Lxc-devel mailing list submissions to > lxc-devel@lists.sourcefor

[lxc-devel] Dynamic devices

2013-03-11 Thread Michael J Coss
a a bit of a hack although I'm still curious why events leak to the containers when they are in separate namespaces. Before I go too much further down this road I was wondering what the current consensus is and figured this was the place to ask. So thoughts? comments? ---Michael J Coss -