Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com): > On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 15:14 -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com): > > > Serge, > > > > > > On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 09:12 -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote: > > > > Quoting Serge Hallyn (serge.hal...@canonical.com): > > > > > Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com): > > > > > > On Sun, 2012-10-21 at 14:49 -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote: > > > > > > > Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com): > > > > > > > > Serge, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Short of building a custom systemd, I don't know how to fix > > > > > > > > that problem > > > > > > > > and I suspect this OP is going to run into this same thing > > > > > > > > (container > > > > > > > > taking over host's console) and might explain some of what he's > > > > > > > > seeing. > > > > > > > > Several of these look like they could cause problems (like > > > > > > > > /dev/pts in > > > > > > > > there). I've really reached an impasse at getting systemd (at > > > > > > > > least > > > > > > > > Fedora 16 and 17) to work in a container without screwing up > > > > > > > > the host. > > > > > > > > Prohibiting mounts entirely in the container might work but I > > > > > > > > suspect > > > > > > > > (having read some systemd error messages) systemd is going to > > > > > > > > have some > > > > > > > > serious heartburn there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IIRC, simply having apparmor(/selinux) refuse the mount of /dev > > > > > > > by the > > > > > > > container should work, i.e. systemd was not going to fail as a > > > > > > > result. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hopefully, you've seen the message from Kay Sievers cc'ed to this > > > > > > list > > > > > > from my post to the systemd-devel list. Looks like they have a > > > > > > mechanism in place to do this... > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/ContainerInterface > > > > > > > > > > Saw the email, haven't yet read the page, thanks. > > > > > > > So based on that page, what we do (set 'container=lxc') should already > > > > be > > > > sufficient. > > > > > > Thanks to the dude asking a libvirt-lxc question on the list, I was let > > > to a page that let to a page that led to some discussion you were having > > > back in March with Ramez Hanna on this very subject, "Re: [Lxc-users] > > > f16 update"... > > > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net/msg03263.html > > > > thanks, I knew we'd been over some of this, but couldn't find my logs of > > it. > > > > > This would look to be the kludge to make a workaround for this problem, > > > I'm just not sure how to make it happen. Given you already found the > > > answer that the device for /dev has to be different than the device for > > > the parent, what should we do. > > > > > > I tried this in the config... > > > > > > lxc.mount.entry=tmpfs /var/lib/lxc/private/Alcove/dev tmpfs defaults 0 0 > > > How about just a devtmpfs? We actually now do this by default (as of very > > recently) in ubuntu by adding > > > devtmpfs dev devtmpfs defaults 0 0 > > NO! That's the problem! That leads to the container connecting to the > hosts console and other devices and committing random acts of terrorism.
No, it shouldn't, because lxc sets up the console after doing the mounts. -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct _______________________________________________ Lxc-users mailing list Lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users
