docs: sandboxes run under runc, not gvisor#973
Conversation
The terminology entry claimed sandboxes use gvisor for security isolation. Both container specs pass io.containerd.runc.v2, so they're ordinary runc containers isolated by kernel namespaces and cgroups, each with its own network namespace unless HostNetwork is set. Nothing in the tree references runsc at all. Layering in gvisor, or another execution engine, is something we may well want later. Until one actually ships, the docs should describe what runs today, since isolation strength is the kind of claim people make deployment decisions on.
|
Warning Review limit reachedYou’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy. Next review available in: 46 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Comment |
![miren-code-agent[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/174767976?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🍪 biscuit: ✅ ready to merge — auto-review, non-blocking
This is a one-line documentation correction in docs/docs/terminology.md, replacing an inaccurate claim that sandboxes use gVisor with an accurate description of the actual isolation mechanism: Linux kernel namespaces and cgroups via containerd.
The new wording — "Sandboxes are Linux containers managed by containerd, isolated using kernel namespaces and cgroups, and each has its own network namespace by default." — is both more precise and consistent with how the rest of the terminology doc describes the Miren Runtime (line 85 already calls out containerd as the foundation). The "by default" qualifier on the network namespace is a nice touch; it leaves the door open without overstating things.
Nothing to flag. The change is factually straightforward and the wording reads cleanly. Ready to merge.
🍪 full review note · comment /biscuit review to run biscuit again.
2 participants
The glossary entry for Sandbox said sandboxes use gvisor for security isolation. They don't, and haven't for a while: both container specs pass
io.containerd.runc.v2, and there's no reference to runsc anywhere in the tree. What you actually get is an ordinary runc container isolated by kernel namespaces and cgroups, with its own network namespace unless host networking is on.Layering in gvisor, or another execution engine, is something we may well want later. Until one actually ships, though, the docs should describe what runs today. Isolation strength is the kind of claim people make deployment decisions on, so overstating it costs more than saying less.