You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hello,
I propose adding support of security.idmap.size for non-isolated containers.
Currently non-isolated containers take all the IDs available in subuid and subgid.
This can be problem when mixing isolated and non-isolated containers.
Isolated containers take each non-overlapping ID ranges starting with ID 65536.
Non-isolated containers take all the range starting with ID 0.
This can be problem because non-isolated can affect ranges of isolated containers.
Ability to use security.idmap.size for non-isolated containers would allow us to restrict them just to first 65536 IDs which are not used by isolated containers and there wouldnt by any overlap.
This way non-isolated containers could affect each other but couldnt affect any isolated containers.
Hello,
I propose adding support of
security.idmap.size
for non-isolated containers.Currently non-isolated containers take all the IDs available in subuid and subgid.
This can be problem when mixing isolated and non-isolated containers.
Isolated containers take each non-overlapping ID ranges starting with ID 65536.
Non-isolated containers take all the range starting with ID 0.
This can be problem because non-isolated can affect ranges of isolated containers.
Ability to use
security.idmap.size
for non-isolated containers would allow us to restrict them just to first 65536 IDs which are not used by isolated containers and there wouldnt by any overlap.This way non-isolated containers could affect each other but couldnt affect any isolated containers.
Related forum post: https://discuss.linuxcontainers.org/t/idmap-behavior-when-setting-unisolated-and-isolated-containers/21769/4
Thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: