From what I can tell, those options make the GPU available to podman, but without any form of host isolation/separation: the GPU is fully available without restrictions.
Since none of the existing namespaces treat GPUs directly (though perhaps this could be accomplished with cgroup?), this lack of isolation doesn’t surprise me.
While this may be useful for some workloads, the apparent lack of separation gives me pause from a security PoV.
One would hope that podman containers accessing GPUs are otherwise properly constrained to prevent their workloads from using GPU access to gain undesirable access to other hosts resources.
So I am left with my original question: what equivalency to podman, other than invocation convenience, is missing from nspawn? If none, it seems to me that having an awkward invocation in nspawn helps alert the user to the risks hidden by podman's convenience.
Since none of the existing namespaces treat GPUs directly (though perhaps this could be accomplished with cgroup?), this lack of isolation doesn’t surprise me.
While this may be useful for some workloads, the apparent lack of separation gives me pause from a security PoV.
One would hope that podman containers accessing GPUs are otherwise properly constrained to prevent their workloads from using GPU access to gain undesirable access to other hosts resources.
So I am left with my original question: what equivalency to podman, other than invocation convenience, is missing from nspawn? If none, it seems to me that having an awkward invocation in nspawn helps alert the user to the risks hidden by podman's convenience.