Shared PID and UTS namespaces #1615

bgrant0607 · 2014-10-07T04:11:30Z

Assuming moby/moby#8211 goes in, we should decide whether we want containers within a pod to share IPC namespaces by default (which fits the "logical host" model for pods and keeps the API simple at the cost of slightly reduced isolation), or provide an option (in which case we could wait until users ask for it).

/cc @thockin

thockin · 2014-10-07T04:22:01Z

I instinctively feel like sharing IPC might be OK, but what is the
principle behind it? Why not share PID and User namespaces, too?

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:11 PM, bgrant0607 notifications@github.com wrote:

Assuming moby/moby#8211 moby/moby#8211
goes in, we should decide whether we want containers within a pod to share
IPC namespaces by default (which fits the "logical host" model for pods and
keeps the API simple at the cost of slightly reduced isolation), or provide
an option (in which case we could wait until users ask for it).

/cc @thockin https://github.com/thockin

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1615.

bgrant0607 · 2014-10-07T05:39:24Z

@thockin I agree we should likely treat these cases similarly to the extent possible. The principle is the same one behind shared network namespaces and volumes within a pod -- facilitating communication / interaction within a pod.

thockin · 2014-10-07T06:19:29Z

Devil's advocate: Signals have to be within a PID namespace. Aren't
signals a form of communication?

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 10:39 PM, bgrant0607 notifications@github.com
wrote:

@thockin https://github.com/thockin I agree we should likely treat
these cases similarly to the extent possible. The principle is the same one
behind shared network namespaces and volumes within a pod -- facilitating
communication / interaction within a pod.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1615 (comment)
.

bgrant0607 · 2014-10-07T07:05:52Z

@thockin: How is that playing devil's advocate? It sounds like you're agreeing with my previous statement.

erictune · 2014-10-10T17:01:34Z

IPC namespaces can contain large objects (e.g. shm segments).
PID, UTS, NS, USER, and probably NET do not.

IPC objects (shms, sems, msqs) can be created by user and can have significant memory usage in typical use cases.
PID, UTS, NS, USER do not for typical use cases.
NET should not be large in "typical" use cases.

IPC objects live beyond the processes in a container, and so would need to be cleaned up in concert with the container or pod lifetime. PID automatically cleans up when process dies.
UTS, USER, and NS don't have user created objects.
NET, I'm not sure if we would give users permission to create objects with lifetime issues.

So, IPC is quite different from the others.

thockin · 2014-10-10T17:04:07Z

My point was that if the principle for sharing is "communication", then we
should also be arguing for shared PID namespace in a pod, but we're not.

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 12:06 AM, bgrant0607 notifications@github.com
wrote:

@thockin https://github.com/thockin: How is that playing devil's
advocate? It sounds like you're agreeing with my previous statement.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1615 (comment)
.

erictune · 2014-10-10T17:07:46Z

Comparison

IPC ns per pod:

charge memory of all IPC objects to pod.
delete IPC object only at pod termination, not at single-container restart.
user responsible for clearing out ipc object on container restart.
shm segments are basically the same as multiple mmaps of a /tmpfs file. if we think /tmpfs as a pod volume makes sense, I guess so does pod-scope IPC ns.

IPC ns per container:

charge memory of all IPC objects to container
delete IPC objects at pod termination
delete IPC objects at container restart? Could be useful. Not clear if this is what users want, but could work. What will docker do?

thockin · 2014-10-10T17:13:48Z

Charging doesn't enter the picture. First, there is no concept of
pod-scope resources yet, and second, memory chargin is first-touch always.

It's entirely about visibility and lifetime. I can imagine use-cases for
both modes, but I want to resist the urge to make it an API feature.

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:08 AM, erictune notifications@github.com wrote:

Comparison

IPC ns per pod:

charge memory of all IPC objects to pod.

delete IPC object only at pod termination, not at single-container
restart.

user responsible for clearing out ipc object on container restart.

shm segments are basically the same as multiple mmaps of a /tmpfs
file. if we think /tmpfs as a pod volume makes sense, I guess so does
pod-scope IPC ns.

IPC ns per container:

charge memory of all IPC objects to container

delete IPC objects at pod termination

delete IPC objects at container restart? Could be useful. Not clear
if this is what users want, but could work. What will docker do?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1615 (comment)
.

bgrant0607 · 2014-10-10T18:41:59Z

In case it wasn't clear, IMO, we should opt for shared namespaces within a pod. I agree we should not surface an option in the API.

bgrant0607 · 2014-10-29T00:42:09Z

moby/moby#8211 has been replaced by moby/moby#8835

bgrant0607 · 2014-11-21T17:08:39Z

Shared IPC namespaces went in: moby/moby#9074

bgrant0607 · 2014-11-21T17:12:09Z

PID namespaces haven't gone anywhere AFAICT: moby/moby#8568

thockin · 2014-12-09T06:12:57Z

We should do IPC namespaces as soon as there's a new docker build

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:09 AM, bgrant0607 notifications@github.com
wrote:

Shared IPC namespaces went in: moby/moby#9074
moby/moby#9074

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1615 (comment)
.

mrunalp · 2015-01-14T18:35:11Z

I would be interested in helping drive this forward by submitting PRs. Has the docker build been updated to include the --ipc feature?

thockin · 2015-01-15T06:17:56Z

I think nobody is working on this, so have at it. At least GCE uses docker
1.4.1.

I think we have a bug in the docker names we build - if a user specifies a
container named "net" there will be something of a conflict. Once we add
IPC it's not longer "net" any more but "pod". Maybe we need a new field in
the docker name [yay :( longer] to disambiguate

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Mrunal Patel notifications@github.com
wrote:

I would be interested in helping drive this forward by submitting PRs. Has
the docker build been updated to include the --ipc feature?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1615 (comment)
.

mrunalp · 2015-01-20T19:43:34Z

@thockin Just starting to work on this. Any suggestions for docker name?

vishh · 2015-01-20T22:43:20Z

@mrunalp: Unassigned myself since you are working on this. Feel free to reach out if I can be of any help!

thockin · 2015-01-20T23:00:39Z

Let's not add a new field in the name. Maybe change:

        networkContainerName  = "net"
        NetworkContainerImage = "kubernetes/pause:latest"

to

       PodInfraContainerName  = "POD"  // caps are not allowed by users, but are OK for docker.
       PodInfraContainerImage = "kubernetes/pause:latest"

mrunalp · 2015-01-20T23:10:11Z

@thockin That sounds good to me.
BTW, go-dockerclient doesn't have support for specifying IpcMode, so I will take a detour to go fix that first.

@vishh Thanks! I will ping you if I need any help.

mrunalp · 2015-01-20T23:53:42Z

fsouza/go-dockerclient#205

mrunalp · 2015-01-21T18:24:19Z

I have started making the changes cherry picking the go-dockerclient change while we are waiting for that to get merged. Hopefully will have some basic testing done by end of day today.

mrunalp · 2015-01-22T20:09:08Z

Created a PR for updating go-dockerclient #3726. Next thing that's blocking me is Fedora 20 not having a recent enough docker package, so I can't test my changes on vagrant setup. I am working with Fedora packaging folks to get that fixed.

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 58716, 59977, 59316, 59884, 60117). If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/cherry-picks.md">here</a>. Add ShareProcessNamespace to PodSpec **What this PR does / why we need it**: This adds an option to the Kubernetes API to configure sharing a process (PID) namespace between the containers in a pod, as described in the [shared pid proposal](https://github.com/verb/community/blob/master/contributors/design-proposals/node/pod-pid-namespace.md). **Which issue(s) this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged)*: WIP #1615 **Special notes for your reviewer**: Questions for API reviewer: - [ ] Is the documentation sufficient to describe the new option? - [x] Does the new field better belong in the security context? - [x] is prepending "alpha" to json/proto fields the right thing to do? **Release note**: ```release-note v1.Pod now has a field to configure whether a single process namespace should be shared between all containers in a pod. This feature is in alpha preview. ```

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 60148, 60022, 59125, 60068, 60154). If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/cherry-picks.md">here</a>. Adding support for per-pod process namespace sharing in kubelet **What this PR does / why we need it**: This enables process namespace sharing between containers in a pod as described in the [Shared PID Namespace](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/design-proposals/node/pod-pid-namespace.md#container-runtime-interface-changes) proposal but leaves it disconnected pending merge of #58716. **Which issue(s) this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged)*: WIP #1615 **Special notes for your reviewer**: **Release note**: ```release-note NONE ```

@dchen1107

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 59463, 59719, 60181, 58283, 59966). If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/cherry-picks.md">here</a>. Set shared PID namespace mode based on PodSpec **What this PR does / why we need it**: This PR enables pod process namespace sharing as an alpha feature, as described in [Shared PID Namespace Proposal](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/design-proposals/node/pod-pid-namespace.md). **Which issue(s) this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged)*: WIP #1615 **Special notes for your reviewer**: /assign @dchen1107 **Release note**: ```release-note When the `PodShareProcessNamespace` alpha feature is enabled, setting `pod.Spec.ShareProcessNamespace` to `true` will cause a single process namespace to be shared between all containers in a pod. ```

verb · 2018-05-07T07:05:13Z

PID namespace sharing was included as an alpha feature in 1.10. It would be nice to coordinate its beta with removing the option to configure it in the kubelet (#41938), which we're planning to do in 1.12. This would leave 2 releases to gather feedback on the alpha.

Does anyone have any concerns they'd like to see addressed before promoting this feature to beta? In particular this is a question for @smarterclayton and @liggitt since it means committing to the API change.

liggitt · 2018-05-23T21:38:59Z

Does anyone have any concerns they'd like to see addressed before promoting this feature to beta?

I don't have any issue with promotion... I primarily cared about maintaining compatible behavior, which the pod spec field did/does.

yyb196 · 2018-06-07T02:54:59Z

@verb you said that "Docker 1.12.x doesn't support shared pid and it cannot be enabled" but i found that docker-1.12.0 has supported share pid name between containers. refer to moby/moby#22481 . Is there a bug which stop we using it at veraion 1.12.x?
Any feedback will be appreciate.

verb · 2018-06-07T04:14:10Z

@yyb196 yes, have a look at kubernetes/community#207 (comment)

@yujuhong

Automatic merge from submit-queue. If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/cherry-picks.md">here</a>. Promote ShareProcessNamespace to beta **What this PR does / why we need it**: The ability to configure PID namespace sharing per-pod was added as an alpha feature in 1.10. This promotes the feature to beta and makes the feature available by default. **Which issue(s) this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged)*: WIP #1615 **Special notes for your reviewer**: /assign @yujuhong **Release note**: ```release-note The PodShareProcessNamespace feature to configure PID namespace sharing within a pod has been promoted to beta. ```

fejta-bot · 2018-09-05T05:12:47Z

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta.
/lifecycle stale

verb · 2018-09-06T09:16:45Z

Update: ShareProcessNamespace is graduating to beta in 1.12. I'll leave this issue open until GA.

/remove-lifecycle stale

fejta-bot · 2018-12-05T09:34:36Z

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta.
/lifecycle stale

fejta-bot · 2019-01-04T10:19:23Z

Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta.
/lifecycle rotten

verb · 2019-01-07T14:03:02Z

Shared PID namespaces was promoted to beta in the last release. afaik no one is working on configurable UTS namespaces. I guess these issues aren't intended to be long-lived, and I'm tired of fighting the bot, so I'll close this as fixed. Anyone wanting to track the feature further can follow kubernetes/enhancements#495.

/remove-lifecycle rotten
/close

k8s-ci-robot · 2019-01-07T14:03:04Z

@verb: Closing this issue.

In response to this:

Shared PID namespaces was promoted to beta in the last release. afaik no one is working on configurable UTS namespaces. I guess these issues aren't intended to be long-lived, and I'm tired of fighting the bot, so I'll close this as fixed. Anyone wanting to track the feature further can follow kubernetes/enhancements#495.

/remove-lifecycle rotten
/close

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

OCPBUGS-15309: Bump to k8s 1.25.11

bgrant0607 added the area/downward-api label Oct 7, 2014

bgrant0607 changed the title ~~Shared IPC namespaces~~ Shared namespaces Oct 10, 2014

bgrant0607 mentioned this issue Oct 17, 2014

Proposal: Container groups moby/moby#8637

Closed

goltermann added the priority/backlog Higher priority than priority/awaiting-more-evidence. label Dec 17, 2014

bgrant0607 assigned vishh Jan 20, 2015

vishh removed their assignment Jan 20, 2015

mrunalp mentioned this issue Jan 22, 2015

Update github.com/fsouza/go-dockerclient to pick up IpcMode support. #3726

Merged

mrunalp mentioned this issue Jan 27, 2015

Shared IPC namespace for containers in a pod #3817

Merged

bradfitz mentioned this issue Feb 9, 2018

x/build: trybots not running due to maintner resource temporarily unavailable errors golang/go#23705

Closed

verb mentioned this issue Feb 22, 2018

Set shared PID namespace mode based on PodSpec #60181

Merged

spiffxp removed team/cluster (deprecated - do not use) labels Mar 15, 2018

rite2nikhil mentioned this issue Apr 19, 2018

Pod namespace sharing enabled, pause container not reaping zombies for k8s 1.7+ and docker 1.13.1 Azure/acs-engine#2729

Closed

verb mentioned this issue Jul 23, 2018

Promote ShareProcessNamespace to beta #66507

Merged

BenTheElder mentioned this issue Jul 23, 2018

figure out DinD + podutils kubernetes/test-infra#8780

Closed

k8s-ci-robot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Sep 5, 2018

k8s-ci-robot removed the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Sep 6, 2018

alsrgv mentioned this issue Nov 15, 2018

Generate host-hash for P2P and SHM based on $(readlink /proc/self/ns/uts) + $(readlink /proc/self/ns/mnt) NVIDIA/nccl#156

Merged

k8s-ci-robot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Dec 5, 2018

k8s-ci-robot added lifecycle/rotten Denotes an issue or PR that has aged beyond stale and will be auto-closed. and removed lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. labels Jan 4, 2019

k8s-ci-robot closed this as completed Jan 7, 2019

k8s-ci-robot removed the lifecycle/rotten Denotes an issue or PR that has aged beyond stale and will be auto-closed. label Jan 7, 2019

stlaz pushed a commit to stlaz/kubernetes that referenced this issue Jun 28, 2023

Merge pull request kubernetes#1615 from jerpeter1/bump-1.25.11

c43ddea

OCPBUGS-15309: Bump to k8s 1.25.11

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Shared PID and UTS namespaces #1615

Shared PID and UTS namespaces #1615

bgrant0607 commented Oct 7, 2014

thockin commented Oct 7, 2014

bgrant0607 commented Oct 7, 2014

thockin commented Oct 7, 2014

bgrant0607 commented Oct 7, 2014

erictune commented Oct 10, 2014

thockin commented Oct 10, 2014

erictune commented Oct 10, 2014

thockin commented Oct 10, 2014

bgrant0607 commented Oct 10, 2014

bgrant0607 commented Oct 29, 2014

bgrant0607 commented Nov 21, 2014

bgrant0607 commented Nov 21, 2014

thockin commented Dec 9, 2014

mrunalp commented Jan 14, 2015

thockin commented Jan 15, 2015

mrunalp commented Jan 20, 2015

vishh commented Jan 20, 2015

thockin commented Jan 20, 2015

mrunalp commented Jan 20, 2015

mrunalp commented Jan 20, 2015

mrunalp commented Jan 21, 2015

mrunalp commented Jan 22, 2015

verb commented May 7, 2018

liggitt commented May 23, 2018

yyb196 commented Jun 7, 2018

verb commented Jun 7, 2018

fejta-bot commented Sep 5, 2018

verb commented Sep 6, 2018

fejta-bot commented Dec 5, 2018

fejta-bot commented Jan 4, 2019

verb commented Jan 7, 2019

k8s-ci-robot commented Jan 7, 2019

Shared PID and UTS namespaces #1615

Shared PID and UTS namespaces #1615

Comments

bgrant0607 commented Oct 7, 2014

thockin commented Oct 7, 2014

bgrant0607 commented Oct 7, 2014

thockin commented Oct 7, 2014

bgrant0607 commented Oct 7, 2014

erictune commented Oct 10, 2014

thockin commented Oct 10, 2014

erictune commented Oct 10, 2014

thockin commented Oct 10, 2014

bgrant0607 commented Oct 10, 2014

bgrant0607 commented Oct 29, 2014

bgrant0607 commented Nov 21, 2014

bgrant0607 commented Nov 21, 2014

thockin commented Dec 9, 2014

mrunalp commented Jan 14, 2015

thockin commented Jan 15, 2015

mrunalp commented Jan 20, 2015

vishh commented Jan 20, 2015

thockin commented Jan 20, 2015

mrunalp commented Jan 20, 2015

mrunalp commented Jan 20, 2015

mrunalp commented Jan 21, 2015

mrunalp commented Jan 22, 2015

verb commented May 7, 2018

liggitt commented May 23, 2018

yyb196 commented Jun 7, 2018

verb commented Jun 7, 2018

fejta-bot commented Sep 5, 2018

verb commented Sep 6, 2018

fejta-bot commented Dec 5, 2018

fejta-bot commented Jan 4, 2019

verb commented Jan 7, 2019

k8s-ci-robot commented Jan 7, 2019