Quoting Wolfgang Bumiller ([email protected]): > > On November 11, 2015 at 6:04 PM Serge Hallyn <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > 2. > > > > If you are just using unpriv containers to use user namespaces, you can > > > > actually have the container be owned/started by root. That's what I do > > > > for some containers where their rootfs is a dmcrypt device which I > > > > couldn't mount as an unpriv user. > > > > > > They are started as root, which means I can prepare the mounts as you > > > suggested above, but I'd again be clobbering the host's namespace. > > > > Oh, right. I forget that even when starting as root, this only works > > for the rootfs itself, not other mounts. (Lxd actually does handle this, > > but at the cost of having a MS_SLAVE mount per container) > > So we ended up doing just that, but now with the latest lxcfs > upgrades (I suspect cgmanager/cgfs changes) AppArmor suddenly > denies lxc-start to bind mount something. Here's what happens > with raw lxc-start commands: > > # lxc-start -n 406 > > works, but (simplified to just unshare -m): > > # unshare -m -- lxc-start -n 406 > > audit: type=1400 audit(1447670720.554:74): apparmor="DENIED" operation="mount" > profile="/usr/bin/lxc-start" > name="/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/lxc/rootfs/sys/fs/cgroup/hugetlb/lxc/406/" > pid=21536 comm="lxc-start" flags="rw, bind" > > This doesn't make sense to me, I don't see how the namespace > change would affect this? (Using unshare -m and then running > `mount --make-r{slave,private,shared} /` doesn't change the > outcome.)
Can you make sure that your apparmor profile has the attach_disconnected flag? _______________________________________________ lxc-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
