Re: Review Request 67097: Added `linux/devices` isolator whitelist support.

[James Peach]

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/
---

(Updated May 23, 2018, 3:44 p.m.)


Review request for mesos, Gilbert Song, Jason Lai, and Jie Yu.


Bugs: MESOS-8792
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8792


Repository: mesos


Description
---

Added `linux/devices` isolator support for populating the container
devices.  This introduces a general mechanism for populating devices
into a specific container but currently only implements devices for all
containers based on the devices specified by the `--allowed_devices`
agent flag.


Diffs (updated)
-

  src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.hpp PRE-CREATION 
  src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp PRE-CREATION 


Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/diff/5/

Changes: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/diff/4-5/


Testing
---

make check (Fedora 27)


Thanks,

James Peach

Re: Review Request 67097: Added `linux/devices` isolator whitelist support.

[James Peach]

> On May 21, 2018, 7:24 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp
> > Lines 170-175 (patched)
> > 
> >
> > Any reason we only do that for the directory, not the actual device 
> > file?
> 
> James Peach wrote:
> The actual device file is supposed to be accessed by the task user, so it 
> has to be owned by that user. This chown is ensuring that we don't also grant 
> access to other host users as a side-effect of the container.
> 
> Jie Yu wrote:
> What do you mean by "side-effect"?
> 
> James Peach wrote:
> We only want to grant access to the containerized task, not to other 
> processes that might be running on the host. For example, when we grant read 
> access, we set `S_IRGRP | S_IROTH` which makes the device readable by 
> everyone on the host. Restricting the permissions on the container devices 
> directory prevents this, and setting the owner ensures we will still have 
> access even if we are later running as the task user.
> 
> Jie Yu wrote:
> What I don't follow is that why we need to set the ownership and 
> permission on the devicesDir. What if we just change the actual device files 
> to have proper ownership (task's user) and permission (700), will that be 
> sufficient?
> 
> James Peach wrote:
> > What if we just change the actual device files to have proper ownership 
> (task's user) and permission (700), will that be sufficient?
> 
> That will work, but I think this approach is better semantically. It 
> presents devices as owned by root, which is what you would get on a VM or a 
> host, and it gives the expected access throughout the container, which is 
> consistent with the cgroups devices policy and avoids any potential issues 
> with multiple credentials inside the container.
> 
> Jie Yu wrote:
> I feel that it's a bit un-intuitive to me that the access control of the 
> device depends on the parent directory's permission (not the device itself). 
> For instance, a host process (user `foo`) having `CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH` will 
> have write access to the device if the device is allowed to be written by the 
> container user `bar`.

As per our conversation on slack, I added a comment documenting that the access 
control for devices has container granularity.


- James


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/#review203515
---


On May 15, 2018, 5:53 p.m., James Peach wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/
> ---
> 
> (Updated May 15, 2018, 5:53 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Gilbert Song, Jason Lai, and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8792
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8792
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Added `linux/devices` isolator support for populating the container
> devices.  This introduces a general mechanism for populating devices
> into a specific container but currently only implements devices for all
> containers based on the devices specified by the `--allowed_devices`
> agent flag.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/diff/4/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> make check (Fedora 27)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James Peach
> 
>

Re: Review Request 67097: Added `linux/devices` isolator whitelist support.

[Jie Yu]

> On May 21, 2018, 7:24 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp
> > Lines 170-175 (patched)
> > 
> >
> > Any reason we only do that for the directory, not the actual device 
> > file?
> 
> James Peach wrote:
> The actual device file is supposed to be accessed by the task user, so it 
> has to be owned by that user. This chown is ensuring that we don't also grant 
> access to other host users as a side-effect of the container.
> 
> Jie Yu wrote:
> What do you mean by "side-effect"?
> 
> James Peach wrote:
> We only want to grant access to the containerized task, not to other 
> processes that might be running on the host. For example, when we grant read 
> access, we set `S_IRGRP | S_IROTH` which makes the device readable by 
> everyone on the host. Restricting the permissions on the container devices 
> directory prevents this, and setting the owner ensures we will still have 
> access even if we are later running as the task user.
> 
> Jie Yu wrote:
> What I don't follow is that why we need to set the ownership and 
> permission on the devicesDir. What if we just change the actual device files 
> to have proper ownership (task's user) and permission (700), will that be 
> sufficient?
> 
> James Peach wrote:
> > What if we just change the actual device files to have proper ownership 
> (task's user) and permission (700), will that be sufficient?
> 
> That will work, but I think this approach is better semantically. It 
> presents devices as owned by root, which is what you would get on a VM or a 
> host, and it gives the expected access throughout the container, which is 
> consistent with the cgroups devices policy and avoids any potential issues 
> with multiple credentials inside the container.

I feel that it's a bit un-intuitive to me that the access control of the device 
depends on the parent directory's permission (not the device itself). For 
instance, a host process (user `foo`) having `CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH` will have 
write access to the device if the device is allowed to be written by the 
container user `bar`.


- Jie


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/#review203515
---


On May 15, 2018, 5:53 p.m., James Peach wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/
> ---
> 
> (Updated May 15, 2018, 5:53 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Gilbert Song, Jason Lai, and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8792
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8792
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Added `linux/devices` isolator support for populating the container
> devices.  This introduces a general mechanism for populating devices
> into a specific container but currently only implements devices for all
> containers based on the devices specified by the `--allowed_devices`
> agent flag.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/diff/4/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> make check (Fedora 27)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James Peach
> 
>

Re: Review Request 67097: Added `linux/devices` isolator whitelist support.

[James Peach]

> On May 21, 2018, 7:24 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp
> > Lines 170-175 (patched)
> > 
> >
> > Any reason we only do that for the directory, not the actual device 
> > file?
> 
> James Peach wrote:
> The actual device file is supposed to be accessed by the task user, so it 
> has to be owned by that user. This chown is ensuring that we don't also grant 
> access to other host users as a side-effect of the container.
> 
> Jie Yu wrote:
> What do you mean by "side-effect"?
> 
> James Peach wrote:
> We only want to grant access to the containerized task, not to other 
> processes that might be running on the host. For example, when we grant read 
> access, we set `S_IRGRP | S_IROTH` which makes the device readable by 
> everyone on the host. Restricting the permissions on the container devices 
> directory prevents this, and setting the owner ensures we will still have 
> access even if we are later running as the task user.
> 
> Jie Yu wrote:
> What I don't follow is that why we need to set the ownership and 
> permission on the devicesDir. What if we just change the actual device files 
> to have proper ownership (task's user) and permission (700), will that be 
> sufficient?

> What if we just change the actual device files to have proper ownership 
> (task's user) and permission (700), will that be sufficient?

That will work, but I think this approach is better semantically. It presents 
devices as owned by root, which is what you would get on a VM or a host, and it 
gives the expected access throughout the container, which is consistent with 
the cgroups devices policy and avoids any potential issues with multiple 
credentials inside the container.


- James


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/#review203515
---


On May 15, 2018, 5:53 p.m., James Peach wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/
> ---
> 
> (Updated May 15, 2018, 5:53 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Gilbert Song, Jason Lai, and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8792
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8792
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Added `linux/devices` isolator support for populating the container
> devices.  This introduces a general mechanism for populating devices
> into a specific container but currently only implements devices for all
> containers based on the devices specified by the `--allowed_devices`
> agent flag.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/diff/4/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> make check (Fedora 27)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James Peach
> 
>

Re: Review Request 67097: Added `linux/devices` isolator whitelist support.

[Jie Yu]

> On May 21, 2018, 7:24 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp
> > Lines 170-175 (patched)
> > 
> >
> > Any reason we only do that for the directory, not the actual device 
> > file?
> 
> James Peach wrote:
> The actual device file is supposed to be accessed by the task user, so it 
> has to be owned by that user. This chown is ensuring that we don't also grant 
> access to other host users as a side-effect of the container.
> 
> Jie Yu wrote:
> What do you mean by "side-effect"?
> 
> James Peach wrote:
> We only want to grant access to the containerized task, not to other 
> processes that might be running on the host. For example, when we grant read 
> access, we set `S_IRGRP | S_IROTH` which makes the device readable by 
> everyone on the host. Restricting the permissions on the container devices 
> directory prevents this, and setting the owner ensures we will still have 
> access even if we are later running as the task user.

What I don't follow is that why we need to set the ownership and permission on 
the devicesDir. What if we just change the actual device files to have proper 
ownership (task's user) and permission (700), will that be sufficient?


- Jie


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/#review203515
---


On May 15, 2018, 5:53 p.m., James Peach wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/
> ---
> 
> (Updated May 15, 2018, 5:53 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Gilbert Song, Jason Lai, and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8792
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8792
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Added `linux/devices` isolator support for populating the container
> devices.  This introduces a general mechanism for populating devices
> into a specific container but currently only implements devices for all
> containers based on the devices specified by the `--allowed_devices`
> agent flag.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/diff/4/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> make check (Fedora 27)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James Peach
> 
>

Re: Review Request 67097: Added `linux/devices` isolator whitelist support.

[James Peach]

> On May 21, 2018, 7:24 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp
> > Lines 170-175 (patched)
> > 
> >
> > Any reason we only do that for the directory, not the actual device 
> > file?
> 
> James Peach wrote:
> The actual device file is supposed to be accessed by the task user, so it 
> has to be owned by that user. This chown is ensuring that we don't also grant 
> access to other host users as a side-effect of the container.
> 
> Jie Yu wrote:
> What do you mean by "side-effect"?

We only want to grant access to the containerized task, not to other processes 
that might be running on the host. For example, when we grant read access, we 
set `S_IRGRP | S_IROTH` which makes the device readable by everyone on the 
host. Restricting the permissions on the container devices directory prevents 
this, and setting the owner ensures we will still have access even if we are 
later running as the task user.


- James


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/#review203515
---


On May 15, 2018, 5:53 p.m., James Peach wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/
> ---
> 
> (Updated May 15, 2018, 5:53 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Gilbert Song, Jason Lai, and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8792
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8792
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Added `linux/devices` isolator support for populating the container
> devices.  This introduces a general mechanism for populating devices
> into a specific container but currently only implements devices for all
> containers based on the devices specified by the `--allowed_devices`
> agent flag.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/diff/4/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> make check (Fedora 27)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James Peach
> 
>

Re: Review Request 67097: Added `linux/devices` isolator whitelist support.

[Jie Yu]

> On May 21, 2018, 7:24 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp
> > Lines 170-175 (patched)
> > 
> >
> > Any reason we only do that for the directory, not the actual device 
> > file?
> 
> James Peach wrote:
> The actual device file is supposed to be accessed by the task user, so it 
> has to be owned by that user. This chown is ensuring that we don't also grant 
> access to other host users as a side-effect of the container.

What do you mean by "side-effect"?


- Jie


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/#review203515
---


On May 15, 2018, 5:53 p.m., James Peach wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/
> ---
> 
> (Updated May 15, 2018, 5:53 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Gilbert Song, Jason Lai, and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8792
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8792
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Added `linux/devices` isolator support for populating the container
> devices.  This introduces a general mechanism for populating devices
> into a specific container but currently only implements devices for all
> containers based on the devices specified by the `--allowed_devices`
> agent flag.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/diff/4/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> make check (Fedora 27)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James Peach
> 
>

Re: Review Request 67097: Added `linux/devices` isolator whitelist support.

[James Peach]

> On May 21, 2018, 7:24 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp
> > Lines 170-175 (patched)
> > 
> >
> > Any reason we only do that for the directory, not the actual device 
> > file?

The actual device file is supposed to be accessed by the task user, so it has 
to be owned by that user. This chown is ensuring that we don't also grant 
access to other host users as a side-effect of the container.


- James


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/#review203515
---


On May 15, 2018, 5:53 p.m., James Peach wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/
> ---
> 
> (Updated May 15, 2018, 5:53 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Gilbert Song, Jason Lai, and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8792
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8792
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Added `linux/devices` isolator support for populating the container
> devices.  This introduces a general mechanism for populating devices
> into a specific container but currently only implements devices for all
> containers based on the devices specified by the `--allowed_devices`
> agent flag.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/diff/4/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> make check (Fedora 27)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James Peach
> 
>

Re: Review Request 67097: Added `linux/devices` isolator whitelist support.

[Jie Yu]

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/#review203515
---


Fix it, then Ship it!





src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp
Lines 170-175 (patched)


Any reason we only do that for the directory, not the actual device file?


- Jie Yu


On May 15, 2018, 5:53 p.m., James Peach wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/
> ---
> 
> (Updated May 15, 2018, 5:53 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Gilbert Song, Jason Lai, and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8792
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8792
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Added `linux/devices` isolator support for populating the container
> devices.  This introduces a general mechanism for populating devices
> into a specific container but currently only implements devices for all
> containers based on the devices specified by the `--allowed_devices`
> agent flag.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/diff/4/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> make check (Fedora 27)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James Peach
> 
>

Re: Review Request 67097: Added `linux/devices` isolator whitelist support.

[James Peach]

> On May 11, 2018, 11:34 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp
> > Lines 73 (patched)
> > 
> >
> > I'd suggest we just skip this whitelist entry, instead of fail the 
> > agent launch.
> > 
> > If the operator does not specify the device path, it indicate that he 
> > does not want the device path to show up in the container. He just want the 
> > device cgroup to allow the device to be whitelisted. Thoughts?
> 
> James Peach wrote:
> I thought about that, and I'm happy to change to that behaviour. However, 
> even in the devices cgroup isolator, the path is actually required .. it just 
> silently doesn't work if you omit the path. Maybe we should require the path 
> in both cases?

We discussed this on chat and agreed that returning an error for a missing path 
is the right behavior for both the linux/devices and cgroups/devices isolators.


- James


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/#review202975
---


On May 15, 2018, 5:53 p.m., James Peach wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/
> ---
> 
> (Updated May 15, 2018, 5:53 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Gilbert Song, Jason Lai, and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8792
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8792
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Added `linux/devices` isolator support for populating the container
> devices.  This introduces a general mechanism for populating devices
> into a specific container but currently only implements devices for all
> containers based on the devices specified by the `--allowed_devices`
> agent flag.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/diff/4/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> make check (Fedora 27)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James Peach
> 
>

Re: Review Request 67097: Added `linux/devices` isolator whitelist support.

[James Peach]

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/
---

(Updated May 15, 2018, 5:53 p.m.)


Review request for mesos, Gilbert Song, Jason Lai, Jie Yu, and Zhitao Li.


Bugs: MESOS-8792
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8792


Repository: mesos


Description
---

Added `linux/devices` isolator support for populating the container
devices.  This introduces a general mechanism for populating devices
into a specific container but currently only implements devices for all
containers based on the devices specified by the `--allowed_devices`
agent flag.


Diffs (updated)
-

  src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.hpp PRE-CREATION 
  src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp PRE-CREATION 


Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/diff/2/

Changes: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/diff/1-2/


Testing
---

manual


Thanks,

James Peach

Re: Review Request 67097: Added `linux/devices` isolator whitelist support.

[James Peach]

> On May 11, 2018, 11:34 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp
> > Lines 73 (patched)
> > 
> >
> > I'd suggest we just skip this whitelist entry, instead of fail the 
> > agent launch.
> > 
> > If the operator does not specify the device path, it indicate that he 
> > does not want the device path to show up in the container. He just want the 
> > device cgroup to allow the device to be whitelisted. Thoughts?

I thought about that, and I'm happy to change to that behaviour. However, even 
in the devices cgroup isolator, the path is actually required .. it just 
silently doesn't work if you omit the path. Maybe we should require the path in 
both cases?


- James


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/#review202975
---


On May 11, 2018, 6:32 p.m., James Peach wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/
> ---
> 
> (Updated May 11, 2018, 6:32 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Gilbert Song, Jason Lai, Jie Yu, and Zhitao Li.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8792
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8792
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Added `linux/devices` isolator support for populating the container
> devices.  This introduces a general mechanism for populating devices
> into a specific container but currently only implements devices for all
> containers based on the devices specified by the `--allowed_devices`
> agent flag.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> manual
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James Peach
> 
>

Re: Review Request 67097: Added `linux/devices` isolator whitelist support.

[Jie Yu]

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/#review202975
---




src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp
Lines 71 (patched)


use `deviceAccess` please :)



src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp
Lines 73 (patched)


I'd suggest we just skip this whitelist entry, instead of fail the agent 
launch.

If the operator does not specify the device path, it indicate that he does 
not want the device path to show up in the container. He just want the device 
cgroup to allow the device to be whitelisted. Thoughts?


- Jie Yu


On May 11, 2018, 6:32 p.m., James Peach wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/
> ---
> 
> (Updated May 11, 2018, 6:32 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Gilbert Song, Jason Lai, Jie Yu, and Zhitao Li.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8792
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8792
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Added `linux/devices` isolator support for populating the container
> devices.  This introduces a general mechanism for populating devices
> into a specific container but currently only implements devices for all
> containers based on the devices specified by the `--allowed_devices`
> agent flag.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/linux/devices.cpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67097/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> manual
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James Peach
> 
>