[flagged]
I don't know where you're getting your information, but this is NOT the consensus on the LMKL, among most Linux kernel people or at any serious large scale tech company.
If you wish to learn about this stuff, lwn.net has a good series of articles on the problems people are actually working on. Most of the problems are related to namespace confusion, privilege escalation through, e.g. block-level access to the filesystem, etc.
> Sometimes the issues are not memory safety ones! But many, most are.
Huge citation needed. In 15 years of security, 8 in Linux kernel security, I have seen maybe one practical exploit related to containers that boiled down to a C-level memory issue.
> That's on you, but I'd be happy to explain more to you if you have questions.
No, you're very confidently stating things that are at the very least debatable. This thread has people doing kernel security as a day job.
The kernel itself does very little to prevent containers from interacting with the host (yes, via syscalls) in a way that affects other containers or the host itself. Containers are not insecure/composed with VMs to protect against memory safety issues so much as to implement sandboxing preventing these syscalls from doing bad shit.
I am extremely familiar with containers, the linux kernel, and virtual machines. In particular from a security perspective.
> The kernel itself does very little to prevent containers from interacting with the host (yes, via syscalls) in a way that affects other containers or the host itself.
Namespaces, such as process namespaces, file namespaces, user namespaces, etc, will prevent a container from interacting with another container without even getting into the fact that you can leverage DAC to do so further.
> Memory safety is the primary issue with containers as a security boundary.
"No it isn't" "Yes it is" "No it isn't" "Yes it is"
That's it.
Frankly, their comments since (especially those around namespacing) doesn’t do much to convince me that understand the distinction either. So it’s not just the opening post.
The best think they could do in this situation is to ask detailed questions from those that reply, as to why people disagree. Rather than stating they do understand and everyone else misunderstands them, while continuing to post the same misconceptions but phrase differently. At least if they asked questions, there’s a chance they might learn something.